Re: [ARSCLIST] and what about that patent?

[Jeffrey J Martin <jjm332@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, but I wonder how much of a customer relations disaster it would be
to discuss their defective tape stock when they're not in the tape
business anymore.  My question is whether it would be worth their time
to even pursue this matter.  Going after Sony is one thing.  Going
after dozens and dozens of small/mid-sized businesses one by one--which
is what we're talking about here--is quite another.  What's the
potential fiscal value of this process in real world terms, and is it
even worth paying the lawyers to draft the cease-and-desist letters,
much less haul someone into court.

Nevertheless, I'm really glad to at least know this patent exists.



----- Original Message -----
From: David Seubert <seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] and what about that patent?

> While legally Ampex could enforce this patent, ethically and
> practically they could not. They created a defective product and it
> wastheir responsibility to find a solution. I suspect that this
> patent was
> filed without ever intending to enforce it, knowing that it would
> be a
> customer relations disaster to try to profit from their mistake. At
> least I hope that was their intent. Ten years later it's hard to say
> what their lawyers and accounts might think, but frankly, I don't
> care.
> I'm surprised that there has never been any legal action against
Ampex
> for the sticky-shed problem. While nobody has died from their
> defectiveproduct, it still has caused millions of dollars in damage
> to their
> customers. Enforcing this patent would be a bit like Merck selling
> heart attack medicine to patients who took Vioxx. Ampex took some
> responsibility for the mistake and developed a solution and made the
> information available, while not profiting from the solution. For
that
> they are to be commended, but it still doesn't change the fact that
> their product was defective. Regardless of who "owns" this
> technique, I
> will continue to bake tapes with no remorse and I think others should
> do the same.
>
> David Seubert
> UCSB
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 06:37 PM, James Lindner wrote:
>
> > FYI a follow up on articles regarding Ampex and Patent enforcement.
> >
> > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/1130sonytopa.html
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/associatedpress/feeds/ap/2004/11/29/
> > ap1678714.html
> >
> > And this from the "Chairman's Letter" in the 2003 annual report
> >
> > Snip..." The greatest contributor to Ampex's 17.2% increase in
> overall> revenues and to the improved operating profits in 2003 was
> income from
> > our
> > licensing portfolio of digital imaging patents. As I forecasted
> in last
> > year's letter, royalty income improved significantly, rising to
> $10.1> million from $4.0 million in the previous year. Some of the
> increase> resulted from payments by licensees that were actually
> due to us in
> > earlier
> > periods, but ongoing royalties are now running at a rate
> significantly> greater than in 2002. Encouragingly, substantially
> all of our
> > royalties now
> > come from digital video recorders and camcorders rather than from
> > analog
> > products that are now largely obsolete.
> >
> > As discussed in previous annual reports, licensing income has
tended
> > to be
> > volatile and difficult to forecast. In 2003 our royalty income was
> > solely
> > generated by digital videotape recorders and camcorders. Starting
> two> years
> > ago we have been moving aggressively to broaden the base of
> royalties> to
> > include additional areas of consumer electronics where we believe
> our> patented technology is being used. These markets include DVD
> recorders> and
> > players, digital still cameras and digital television receivers,
> each> of
> > which represents large future market opportunities.
> >
> > I am pleased to report that, after the year end, we negotiated our
> > first
> > license for DVD recorders, which we expect to sign shortly. This
new
> > licensee, a multi-billion dollar manufacturer of consumer
electronic
> > products based in Japan, has informed us that they expect to begin
> > production later this year of certain new products that will use
our
> > patents. Since these products have not yet been marketed, it is not
> > possible
> > to forecast the revenue impact on Ampex this year, but is an
> > indication that
> > developments in the DVD market may be moving favorably for us.
> >
> > At the end of 2002, we had notified 17 manufacturers of digital
> still> cameras of their potential infringement of our patents and,
> as of
> > today, we
> > believe we have put substantially all major manufacturers on
> notice.We> are
> > currently in advanced negotiations for our first patent license
> in the
> > digital still camera field with one of the largest manufacturers in
> > this
> > market, but we are at present far apart on financial terms. While
we
> > hope to
> > arrive at a satisfactory agreement it is reasonably likely that,
> as I
> > mentioned in last year's letter, litigation will become
> necessary. We
> > will,
> > of course, announce developments in this situation as they occur.
> >
> > There are several negotiations under way with other potential
> > licensees, not
> > just digital still cameras but also other products that we
> believe to
> > be
> > infringing our patents. It is too early to say what impact, if any,
> > these
> > negotiations will have in 2004. However, Ampex has been in the
> > licensing
> > business for more than 30 years and our patent portfolio is the
> result> of
> > substantial and forward-looking investments in research and
> > development of
> > digital imaging technology over many years. An expanded licensing
> > program
> > has the potential to produce a dramatic change in Ampex's financial
> > outlook
> > and our strategy is to pursue these opportunities aggressively.
> >
> > As we have said in previous letters, our preference is to avoid the
> > substantial expenses that patent lawsuits involve. However, if we
do
> > have to
> > litigate, our recent financial performance has substantially
> improved> our
> > ability to do so. The management team has done an excellent job
> of cash
> > generation and our liquid resources should be more than adequate
for
> > any
> > litigation costs that can currently be foreseen." Snip....
> >
> > Clearly Ampex is now in the patent enforcement business. 'Nuff
> said on
> > this
> > topic.
> >
> > jim
> >
> > *
> >         Jim Lindner
> > *
> >         Media Matters, LLC
> > *
> >         Email: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *
> >         Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL
> >         New York, N.Y. 10018
> > *
> >         eFax (646) 349-4475
> > *
> >         Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> > *
> >         www.media-matters.net
> >
>