Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome

[Matthew Barton <mbarton@xxxxxxx>]

I handled a great deal of Pyral tape while working at the Alan Lomax
Archives in New York. It was what he used on his Spanish field of
1952-3. I don't recall which grade it was. No SSS, but many of the tapes
were cupped and warped in ways that were almost psychedelic. They also
were slightly wider than 1/4", and I had to shim the tape-rollers so
that the tape would pass unhindered. In the end though, all it took to
make them playable was a slow-wind or two. On playback, they revealed
good, frequently great sound, which can be heard on the reissues of this
material.

Matthew Barton
American Folklife Center
The Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4610
phone: (202) 707-1733
fax: (202) 707-2076
email: mbarton@xxxxxxx

>>> oconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12/16/2004 10:51:07 AM >>>
Some of the worst 1/4 inch tape I have encountered was AGFA PEM 469 and
PYRAL
45, PYRAL 22 & PYRAL 180603.  My understanding is that AGFA recalled
their
stock on a worldwide basis and offered to remaster & replace it in
about
1987.  Like anything, some institutions took advantage of this whilst
others
did not, perhaps from not hearing about the offer.  The Pyral tape not
only
has SSS but was slightly too wide for the tape transport and equally
nasty to
work with.  Since being in the States I have not come across these two
brands, as of yet, and really hope I never do ;-)

Cheers

Marie O'Connell
Sound Archivist
Mississippi Department Of Archives & History
200 North Street
Jackson, MS, 39201
Ph: 601-576-6909

Steve Green 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
> >>
> >
> >