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 (3270)	8/24/1998 10:11:00 AM
From: Hal Campbell	Respond to of 17679

Thanks for the correction Rainforest. I did say it as if it were an automatic. Citing here the summary by " Count Bugula" on Yahoo that Ed and others have mentioned ...that struck me as persuasive - but I lack the expertise to judge ......... Mitsubishi does seem to really want to be taking little AXC to the mat on these litigations ..... makes me wonder if someone from AXC insulted some Mitsubishi somebody's mother or wife ( or implied the 2 were one and the same) or something ...... << Oral arguments---that's when the lawyers from each side get to plead their cases before the appellate panel of judges---are scheduled for early September, 1998. An appeals decision should be rendered by about January 1998, but could take as long as 8 months more, depending upon case backlogs, etc. What is the most likely conclusion to be reached by the appeals panel? As a matter of judicial economy, the most likely scenario is that the Federal Court will reverse McKelvie's decision, thereby reinstating the $8 million damages plus interest. My guess of the probability of this occurring is 50%. I think there's a 30% chance that the panel will order a new trial on the third element, to resolve once and for all whether Mitsu's TV sets use one or two clocks. Finally, I put the odds at 20% that the panel affirms McKelvie's order. When you consider the liberties McKelvie took with the record, and his FAILURE (along with Mitsubishi's) to specifically inform the jury directly that a finding of equivalence-rather than literal infringement----for elements two OR three means that they are concluding that Mitsu's sets use 2 clocks, there really is no alternative but to properly award damages to Ampex. In the event the Federal Court agrees, Mitsu can ask for en banc review by all judges in the Court, but this seldom results in a reversal. Contrary to some popular views of the laws, if AXC gets a favorable appellate ruling, Mitsu cannot appeal indefinitely.>>