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 (3374)	9/10/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: flickerful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

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) hey hal....nice outfit <g> hmmm i am not so sure tenacity in the line of hostile questioning would have been my tack. but, if my brief had no magic bullet i might have had little choice... i am not exactly buoyant yet. did you happen to speak with anyone else who attended for the same reason? when they dismissed the parties, what were the words used...taking it under advisement? any time frame estimates? " 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."

To: Hal Campbell who wrote (3374)	9/10/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: killybegs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Hal, I was there as well. Too bad there is no cocktail hour before or after so we could have chatted. I'll go into much more detail later from my notes. However, I am optimistic based on the amount of time and the nature of the questions the judges, including the acerbic one, spent on McKelvie's claim construction which clearly favored Ampex. I do think the Judge's comment to Mitsu's lawyer.."are your saying you infringe the intermittently is key"..