SI
SI
discoversearch

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)
An SI Board Since June 1997
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
17679 72 0 AMPX
Emcee:  Gus Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
16929Well then lets say they do not settle. The ITC trial is, at this point, set for Hal Campbell-2/10/2005
16928There are always lawyers who can say they can win- look at the RIMM case, and tPaul Lee-2/9/2005
16927Perhaps not. If not, then they are risking a great deal to avoid a very low royaHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16926Kodak is not bluffing, but it is high stakes poker.Paul Lee-2/9/2005
16925PS poker analogy again... I think Kodak is simply bluffingHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16924For what little it is worth.... Me, I'm extremely tempted to sell today. HaHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16923Appears Royce did quite a bit of selling. From their report of the huge profit tHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16922The preceding just my opinion, of course. If this is an expanded 99 card stud gaHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16921Thanks for the link, John. Yeah, even at the reduced royalty rate (the patents dHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16920Camera phone market by 2008 650 million units! infotrends-rgi.comjohn b-2/9/2005
16919Well written as always, Boots.In any case the slightly better squad won.McNabb dHal Campbell-2/9/2005
16918"dry heaves"...as in heaving the football? Hal, why in the world did bootsup1-2/8/2005
16917More motions. Ampex moved to compress the ITC timetable. For obvious reasons - tHal Campbell-2/8/2005
16916OT Heard that Runyon and Fraley said, McNabb was having dry heaves in the huddlHal Campbell-2/8/2005
16915Correct Hal; two bites of the apple through appeals (in a worst case scenario).Countbugula-2/8/2005
16914Correction. A negative ITC ruling would "probably" not bring an end toHal Campbell-2/8/2005
16913FWIW I misspoke yesterday. Assumed that because a basket of patents was involveHal Campbell-2/7/2005
16912Eagles could use a couple running backs, Tom. Not too early to start training thHal Campbell-2/7/2005
16911Thanks for all the insight Count..... I truly appreciate the view from your angThomas Kirwin-2/7/2005
16910I forgot to add one more point to my last post. Several years ago, I sat in the Countbugula-2/6/2005
16909Thanks for your fine post, Count. As an aside.There is no question that Canon Hal Campbell-2/6/2005
16908At the heart of the Ampex vs. Kodak war is patent no. 4,821,121 by Daniel A. BeaCountbugula-2/6/2005
16907Thanks for looking over my shoulder there Hal, Sometimes I have to read so fastThomas Kirwin-2/6/2005
16906<< We Don't Need No Stinking Witnesses" You are right there Hal.Hal Campbell-2/6/2005
16905"We Don't Need No Stinking Witnesses" You are right there Hal....Thomas Kirwin-2/6/2005
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News