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: killybegs who wrote (3541)	9/30/1998 2:28:00 PM
From: Thomas Kirwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

COURT OF APPEALS RULES AGAINST AMPEX IN SUIT AGAINST MITSUBISHI REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 30, l998--Ampex Corp. (AMEX:AXC.A) today announced that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an opinion affirming a lower court judgment which set aside a jury verdict in favor of Ampex. As originally reported on April 10, l997 and June 18, l997, the jury in this case had found that Mitsubishi had infringed one of Ampex's patents in connection with the manufacturing of picture-in-picture television receivers, and awarded damages of $8.1 million. Ampex appealed from the judgment of the District Court judge in favor of Mitsubishi, based on his ruling that the manner in which the jury had completed its verdict form subjected Ampex's charge of infringement to the defense of prosecution history estoppel. Ampex is reviewing the opinion of the Court of Appeals and is considering what action, if any, to take in view of this ruling. This decision applies only to one of the company's patents, which is used in picture-in-picture television sets. Ampex has asserted additional infringement claims against Mitsubishi with respect to infringement of Ampex patents in connection with various VCR products. No date has been set for a trial of these claims. As previously disclosed, no income from the jury's earlier damage award has been recorded in the company's financial statements. Ampex Corp., headquartered in Redwood City, is one of the world's leading providers of technologies for the acquisition, storage and processing of visual information. Today, Ampex is delivering digital image solutions for large-scale corporate, government, network, entertainment and telecommunications applications. During its more than 50-year history of innovation, Ampex has been granted thousands of patents and numerous awards for technical achievement. Ampex customers include such leading organizations as AT&T, Boeing, CNN, Mobil Oil, HBO, Time Warner and NASA. Any statements contained herein that are not historical facts are "forward-looking" statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of l995, and involve risks and uncertainties. Information on potential factors which could affect the company's actual results of operations are included in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including but not limited to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, l998, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, l998. CONTACT: Ampex Corp. Karen D. Schweikher, 650/367-4111

To: killybegs who wrote (3541)	9/30/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: PaddyD	Respond to of 17679

<<As originally reported on April 10, l997 and June 18, l997, the jury in this case had found that Mitsubishi had infringed one of Ampex's patents in connection with the manufacturing of picture-in-picture television receivers, and awarded damages of $8.1 million. >> The jury was convinced about infringement enough to award an $8.1 MM settlement. But oh yeah! They didn't check the little boxes on the form right, even though the form was ambiguous as hell. But the way they they checked the boxes shows they didn't think there was infringement! And it took from April 10, 1997 to review this case and come up with this opinion. Have I got this right?

To: killybegs who wrote (3541)	9/30/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: Hal Campbell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

Jubimer, thanks very much for posting the specific decision. Know you had powerful hopes here. Didn't we all. Would have been coup. A vindication of a rich strategy. As would have KM. Just doesn't always work out. Quite an education, AXC. An expensive one.