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: Gus who wrote (3425)	9/16/1998 11:22:00 AM
From: flickerful	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

<<As I understand it, the implications of the '027 Lemoine patent lawsuit go far beyond the the actual damages of $8.1 million jury award. Bramson indicated in one of his letters that this was the first time that a jury agreed with AXC's contention that some of the video signal processing techology used in VCRs was also being used in television receivers, a product category that up to this case has not produced any significant royalty payments for AXC.>> gus. i am in complete agreement here. i fully expect ampex, at no time, has ever diminished the true significance of this hand- selected, if you will, case and it would not be surprise me to see it become a landmark decision. the ramifications and the repercussions here are enormous.

To: Gus who wrote (3425)	9/17/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: David Wise	Respond to of 17679

You mentioned recovery is limited to the last 6 years. How long is their patent good for? I was just reading about the guy who actually invented the TV. RCA didn't want to pay royalties to anyone, which contributed to the invention being practically unused for years. Right after RCA finally agreed to pay royalties and produce TVs using this guy's encoding, WWII started. The US government banned TV sales for some period of time - I suppose to save materials for the war effort. By the time the war was over, his patent had expired. In some technology museum a guy from RCA was given credit as the sole inventor of the television until years later when this poor soul received recognition (I think in 1982). I can't help but feel that Ampex is having the same luck with such as the PIP invention. Except that everyone with deep pockets is using it, while they pay lawyers to keep it in the courts until Ampex runs out of money or patience. Fortunately, any patent expiration won't affect the past, and the statute of limitations is protected since it's already in the courts.

To: Gus who wrote (3425)	9/17/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: David Wise	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

I hope if we ever win we can recover not only attorneys' fees (which as I recall was NOT a possibility by the last judge's ruling), but also some kind of penalty for the malicious theft and all the prolonged appeals. There are some parts of the American judicial system that are broken. This is one. Another example - I had stock in a company that claimed to own a division that had contracts to produce a TV series and receive royalties for after market toys and stuff. They even had a full page add to this effect in a financial magazine. Months later they announced that they had broken off discussions with the company that they were trying to buy which actually owned the TV program and had the contracts. Meanwhile, the stock promoters had made a killing selling their stock while the rest of us held on too long. I told the president of the company that I was considering a class action lawsuit. He said he'd just file bankruptcy if I did. Actually, the company was so small that I probably couldn't get an attorney to do it even as a class. He filed bankruptcy, anyway, and has since been taken over by vote of stockholders. I lost about $1,700. Not enough to be worth paying an attorney when I may not even be able to recover. But unfortunately these scumbags know that and use it to get by with theft. Sorry - the last part is off subject, but is meant to point out a general flaw in our judicial system. When it is too complicated and expensive to use the system of justice, justice is not served. Many people go bankrupt and lose everything while spending years trying to get a case settled in court. It would be a very interesting statistic to find out how many people believe they have lost money unjustly but decided not to go to court for these reasons. I'll bet it's greater than 50% of the population.