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 (3373)	9/10/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: Hal Campbell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

I was present at the oral arguments this morning. Please be aware when reading this that I know next to nothing of legal matters, to the point that I also knew nothing of the dress code for spectators and had to be granted a special exception by the clerk to gain entry ( had no coat or tie). Had never been in a courtroom before in my life ( nice paneling). About 50 in the audience. One legal team had more charts than Ross Perot - I didn't know whom that side represented but my initial thought was that they were doomed ( given the time constraints ). Figured the judges would go for concise elegance of presentation. But again.......I know little of these things. The judges entered ...and indeed the first word out of the senior judge's mouth was a warning to the lawyers ( they were AXC's) about the charts. That judge hardly said another word. Now, again due to my ignorance, I had guessed AXC would attack McKelvie's odd leap of logic in assuming the jury's failure to check a finding of literal infringement , and their checking of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents equated with a finding that Mitsubishi used 2 clocks. I thought they would argue that was a grossly inadequate basis to overturn a clear jury decision. They did not do that directly.The heart of their argument ( and the lawyer tenaciously stuck to it under clearly hostile questioning from one judge ) was that the AXC circuit was what it was....no getting around it ....and that even the Mitsubishi expert under cross examination admitted that it " ultimately " determined all that followed in Mitsubishi's PIP application. The heart of Mitsubishi's argument seemed to me to be the AXC circuit was so far precedent to the the action of the PIP application, that claming infringement was equivalent to saying that your great grandparents determined the sex of your children. Interesting metaphor in light of all of AXC's seminal patents. Toward the end the Mitsubishi lawyer even seemed so confident that he mentioned an early McKelvie decision that denied them the right to seek legal fees from AXC ...and the judge that seemed cordial to their case cited the irrelevance of that but granted that after the court's decision they could file a motion to that effect ( at least that is what I gathered). The judges. As I mentioned, the elder judge in the center said very little. Looked bored to me, but that is simply a guess. The judge to his left rather gently guided the AXC lawyer away from the charts ( quickly and sparingly used) to their clock argument. The judge that did most of the talking was hostile to a degree that surprised me. Paraphrasing some of the judge's dialogue ..... " so what is this magic bullet of testimony that is at the heart of your case? I have read the briefs and I find nothin there! " " I don't want to hear what you have to say, I want to know the exact testimony!" " You are asking us to retry this case . fact finding etc...that is not our function!" The AXC lawyer repeatedly replied " no, we are asking you to consider ALL the evidence, as this court has done before." Essentially, AXC does not seem to be basing its appeal on a point of legal detail, but in fact does seem to be asking the judges to serve as a second jury. The hostile judge did get one good line off on the Mitsubishi lawyer. When that lawyer said at times there is NO signal in the circuit resulting from the AXC circuit .... the judge said " are you saying that ay one moment you are infringing, at the next you are not?" Had to laugh ( softly - wasn't dressed well LOL) My guess. The only apparent " facts" presented were by AXC. Mitsubishi simply said it ain't so....and bullied a bit about threatening claims for legal damages. The only discernible ( and that may be an unfair assumption ) reaction to the case was from the hostile judge, and I would guess that is a vote for Mitsubishi. The other two judges? ...could not begin to guess. If there is any fine point of law involved in overturning this verdict, it was not apparent to me.Again, AXC is asking the judges to serve as a second jury. I hope someone more expert than I was present, and would appreciate hearing of his or her opinions. I am neither optimistic or pessimistic from the proceedings I witnessed. As with so much of this company's prospects at the moment - I simply do not know. Fingers crossed. I can on;y say, as a shareholder, that I hope some day more people use AXC patents because they now do what they do so well ...not because they once thought of something long ago ........