[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
The other minor factor about Pyral is that they made their boxes slightly
bigger and thinner too in the 10.5 inch reels. The tape came with a pink or
grey-blue backing, and sometimes with visible metallic fibres all over
it!.....oh the joys of archiving.
Marie O'Connell
Matthew Barton wrote:
> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >