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: Hal Campbell who wrote (3360)	9/9/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: flickerful	Respond to of 17679

hal and all...i am trying to get some kind of information about the hearings to no avail at this point, but still trying.

To: Hal Campbell who wrote (3360)	9/11/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: flickerful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

They checked neither yes or no on literal infringement on 3, but checked yes on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the thing is the non-checking of 3 was a response more to the jury intsruction, rather than any undermining of their clear construction that literally, Mitsubishi used one clock. rather, they left it unchecked because it was not unanimous under the jury instruction standard. it is not therefore dispositive of their finding under 2, as McKelvie inexplicably would have one believe, by his ruling...