LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  December 2004

ARSCLIST December 2004

Subject:

Re: and what about that patent?

From:

David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:20:13 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (143 lines)

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: [log in to unmask]
> *
>         Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL
>         New York, N.Y. 10018
> *
>         eFax (646) 349-4475
> *
>         Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> *
>         www.media-matters.net
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager