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 (3381)	9/10/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: flickerful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

but that patent is so old...we didn't know not enough...even if it were remotely genuine.

To: Hal Campbell who wrote (3381)	9/10/1998 3:59:00 PM
From: killybegs	Respond to of 17679

Ampex V. Mitsu 10AM 97-1592. Part 1 My notes...."Teams lining up. Tough to figure out who is who" Ampex is up first.... Lawyer begins. We will show why the Jury does not find NO infringment. He began by pointing out the inexactness of the jury verdict form and its instructions. According to instructions they were not to answer if not unanimous. They answered element 2 as yes for ampex under literal infringement. At this point Judge Loire interrupted and said not to spend time on this issue as the Judges already well understood it. Ampex then said the issue is not structure. Mitsu Tv are the same structure but function. "Determined By" Judge Loire asked question about ultimate determinant or approximate determinant. Ampex said one clock signal is the unltimate determinant -under McKelvie's claim construction this is literal infringement. Also, under the claim construction, gating and changes of frequencies are permitted and still it is the same clock signal. Ampex brought out that Mitsu's own expert admitted under cross examination that the Distict Court claim construction literally described Mitsu's product. At this point the hostile or acerbic judge asked lots of questions about fact finding and what was in the record. He challenged Ampex to show in the record where Mitsubishi's expert conceded that one clock signal is used in their product. Ampex's attorney then directed him to page 23, a6 811 to a6 812--Lechner testimony---line 19---where the expert said " ....actual event of writing and reading is the 4fsc signal." Ampex said this is where Mitsu had to concede in the record... that ended Ampex's fifteen minutes.