[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome

The first sticky-tape problem I encountered, before SSS was known and
before I was awarded the honorary title of Inventor of this problem, was on
one of the early types of 3M backed tape (this tape's problem could have
been sticky backing rather than sticky oxide, but it certainly did drag).
When the problem began to appear on new Ampex tape-stock, I contacted
Ampex; and we all know the rest of the story. Wiping with non-woven fabric
was the solution suggested when the folks from Ampex visited Yale; the idea
of baking must have come along later.

Richard

At 09:37 AM 12/15/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Thread was: and what about that patent?

Has anyone compiled a definitive list of tape manufacturers and tape
types for which bonafide cases of Sticky Shed Syndrome have turned up?

It's my understanding that Ampex 406 was one of the major problematic
tapes, but I've also heard that other brands and types of tape have
also been found with SSS. If the main cause was a problematic formula
developed by Ampex, why would other brands also suffer? Did some
companies repackage Ampex tape under other names? Did they obtain
rights to use the formula in manufacturing their own tape?

It would be great to see a list of known brands exhibiting SSS. In the
early 1990s, I encountered some way serious Sticky Shed on Shamrock
reels from the 1970s. They were in a humid climate (Kentucky), which
leads me to ask whether Sticky Shed is believed to be a manufacturing
problem or a climate problem or a combination of the two?

Can anyone elaborate for the List?

Thanks!


Steve Green
Western Folklife Center

*******

On Dec 15, 2004, at 8:20 AM, David Seubert wrote:

While legally Ampex could enforce this patent, ethically and
practically they could not. They created a defective product and it was
their 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 defective
product, 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


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]