Be careful.

–Bill Heinze
http://www.ip-updates.com

He finally admitted that a company like Ampex might like, yeah, actually own IP and be entitled to, like, collect on it.

Patent trolls is a neat little term the Intels of the world have come up with–but I guess people who steal IP are still just patent thieves, correct?
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:28 PM
To: Ante, Spencer
Subject: RE: re ampex

Re Shulman–my point was that he is often hired to defend infringers, so he does have an ax to grind with his perspective. What is ironic is the Wilson Sonsini handled the IPO for Dolby Labs recently, a company with a very similiar business model to Ampex, although much larger. As you may know, Ray Dolby was at Ampex in the 50′s. His brother Dale worked at Ampex for years. As a matter of fact, he is named on some of the patents Shulman is so exercised about. I wonder if Tom DeFilipps, who is the partner out of the Palo Alto office advising Dolby, will appreciate Mr. Shulman’s rheotoric.

From: Ante, Spencer [mailto:Spencer_Ante@businessweek.com]
Sent: Fri 4/8/2005 4:11 PM
To:
Subject: RE: re ampex

Thanks for your thoughts. There’s no conflict with Shulman given that he’s making negative comments about Ampex, not Kodak.

Your point about the time it takes to commercialize technology is a good one. But again, I did not take a position on Ampex and whether it was a patent troll. I merely reported the two sides of the debate, and impressions of others.

Spencer

Original Message
From: Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:43 AM
To: Ante, Spencer
Subject: RE: re ampex

Hope you will disclose that Ron Shulman lost a very high profile case against Kodak for patent infringement just this past October representing Sun who had to bring in somebody else. http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/10/100704k.html

Does the fact that patents created for their products introduced to the professional market in the early to mid 90’s took until the early 2000’s to be used in mass consumer products somehow negate the fact that it is their intellectual property and that they should be paid for its use?

Also, here is a list of royalty collections over the past years. Does not include 2004. Hardly a “dusting off of patents” .

Royalty Income by Year
Royalty

Sources: Annual Reports by Year
Income (millions)

2003
10.1
2002
4
2001
12.1
2000
12.3
1999
19.9
1998
10.6
1997
12.6
1996
10.5
1995
15.6
1994
7.4
1993
2.6
1992
15.036
1991
62.91
1990
8.2
1989
31.2
1988
27.3
1987
12.3
Total
274.646

Original Message
From: Ante, Spencer [mailto:Spencer_Ante@businessweek.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: re ampex

Thanks for your note.

I did not take a personal stand on this issue but several lawyers I spoke with seemed to feel that this was a legitimate point/perception, especially in Silicon Valley.

One lawyer I spoke with, Wilson Sonsini’s Ron Shulman, called Ampex a “slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist.”

The reason according to him is that Ampex, though it was innovative in the past, has not really done anything of import for a long time.

We will be posting an interview with Shulman on the Web site soon.

Anyway, as the story shows, there are other issues to be concerned about with Ampex as well from an investor’s perspective.

Best,

Spencer