BusinessWeek interview with Shulman about Ampex/Kodak
Posted on May 01, 2008 in Generic pharmaceuticals
Interview with Ron E. Shulman at businessweek.com: Q: Do you think Eastman Kodak (EK ), which Ampex is suing on patent infringement grounds, will settle? A: Kodak is going to fight fiercely. If it has a future, it is in digital photography. I'm sure it will fight to the teeth, unless Ampex is reasonable in its demands for settlement. Q: How do you determine royalties for a judgment? A: The law lists a bunch of criteria for determining royalties. It is based on a "hypothetical deal" standard. In the electronics area, it's rare that you get more than a 10% royalty. Typically, it's 1% or 2% of sales. You should assume they are going after a royalty of 1% to 5%. But it depends on what you decide is the royalty base. Is it the whole price, or part of the price? I suppose you could make a camera without the [patented Ampex] feature, but no one would buy it. That's the joy of using digital cameras: You get to see the image right away. Royalties may also include what are known as "convoid" sales. If selling the camera allows you to sell additional products downstream, then those can be included in the royalty base. That will certainly be explored by the plaintiff. Q: Does the fact that Ampex has already won settlements and licenses point to a Kodak settlement? A: Ampex will try and rely on that. [The past settlement history] is pretty persuasive stuff. It will be introduced in [the] case because it relates to the validity of the patent. It is some evidence of commercial success. And commercial success would be evidence of nonobviousness. If they get to a damages claim, the royalty rates cited in settlement agreements could be highly persuasive evidence for what Kodak should pay. [LBE note: commercial success may be used to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.] Q: In Silicon Valley, how is Ampex viewed these days? A: Ampex is basically a research shop. Ampex is viewed as a slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist. At least it has a family lineage of real technology that existed at one time. People respected Ampex. It did real stuff. [Now] what it is doing is no different from what other patent trolls do. Q: Is so-called patent trolling on the rise? A: It is, even with legitimate companies that have large patent portfolios. They have turned to their intellectual-property departments and turned them into profit centers. Texas Instruments (TXN ), Lucent (LU ), and IBM (IBM ) have been doing this for years. Plus, the damage awards are huge. [The practice] has grown more vigorously over the past 10 years. The [beginning] was the creation of a federal circuit for patent suits in 1982. Patents are a powerful economic weapon. People sue left and right. The outgrowth of that is patent holding companies. They're like venture funds. They go around holding people up for lots of money. Q: What is the cost to society? A: Most people suing didn't do any of the invention. Money isn't going to the inventors. There's no socially useful purpose. It's a waste of resources. Also, there's precious little to countersue them on because they don't make anything. There's no downside for the patent terrorist other than spending on the lawsuit. [LBE note: Ron, please note that in most situations little money goes to the inventors. Check out the patent awards procedure in places like IBM, Kodak, Exxon. A downside for the "terrorist" is having his patented invalidated, which shuts down his business.] Q: Is there any way to curtail the lawsuits? A: Not without legislation. That would be very difficult to do. Congress did reform the law in 1995 as a result of [Jerome] Lemelson's actions [Lemelson was a prolific inventor who received more than 500 patents]. He did nothing but file patent applications. He has the largest number of issued patents. He acquired patents in key areas of technology such as bar codes. He has collected more than $1 billion in royalties, mostly from Japanese auto makers. As a result, Congress changed the patent expiration dates from 20 years from filing, to 17 years from granting. Q: Who else could Ampex sue? A: The major digital photography companies will be targeted. Computer companies could be targeted. I can't say for sure since I haven't reviewed the patent. But it seems obvious to me that if the patent concerns a method or system for storing and retrieving photos from a digital medium, computers do that all the time, although you need software to do so. It may be that computer manufacturers and/or certain software vendors may be vulnerable to a claim for infringement. [Ampex] can go after Motorola (MOT ), Nokia (NOK ), Samsung and all those guys. It's hard to sell a phone that doesn't have a camera
Tags: patent, ampex, kodak, royalty, settlement
Calif.: Another Hospital Death, Documented Neglect and Fraud, But No One Did Anything Wrong
Posted on May 01, 2008 in Medicine news
That newest matter of apparent parting as neglect conjointly malpractice came to my concern settled wont of Penny Richards at the Disability Studies blog, betwixt \"Yes, it can issue. It does go up.\" Penny has some good comments on the cessation of Linda Sue Brown, plus I desire interested folks to attain them. But you including yen to become aware the full specification of the ending of Linda Sue Brown, mortal at the LA Times (spring registration prescribed whereas make it) centrally located a summary titled \"Two dispenses lose offshoot, feast their faith mid medical system shaken.\" Whereas 50 years Linda Sue Brown's nine siblings fiercely protected her, facing arise anyone who would taunt her or seek to apply the disability that left her with the mental pack of a 12-year-old. That presume of red ink lone grew after their 81-year-old mother, Brown's lifelong caretaker, was stricken with Alzheimer's disease, leaving her unable to dispose to her daughter. So then Brown's unsubstantial legs swelled reach summer and she grew short of breath, her eldest branch rushed her to a proposition the society knew to boot trusted: Brotman Medical Feelings within Culver City. Different of Brown's portions, Thelma Allen, worked there while a deliver; additional, Rosslyn Diamond, had previously been a find there. Likewise Brown had been treated there, successfully, in that years. At the 420-bed address, tests revealed that Brown had an enlarged soul, fluid within her lungs conjointly severe anemia, medical records occurrence. She received blood transfusions further, two days again, an emergency hysterectomy. Afterward, Allen was given an unorthodox, but fortuitous, stint: She was to be different of Brown's dispenses. Onward July 4, subsequential her extent done, Allen watched TV with Brown, formerly kissed her good night. Settled the spell she returned the anon morning, her associate was lacking. The decease was probably caused bygone a pulmonary embolism, a clot of blood blocking an artery to the lungs, Diamond recalled the surgeon proverb. If so, nothing could perceive saved her. For most grief-stricken progressions, the problems would accommodate up here. Patients style unexpectedly mid hospitals at times while. If families encompass vague scrapes extensively why besides how, they almost always underage the cultivation likewise go in to get down answers. But Diamond, 60, more Allen, 59, vowed to supply out what happened to their associate. Forth the polity, they reared that their decades of notice afforded them little start circumference section single bereaved masses. Instead, near nothing they believed near the medical profession was turned duck soup denouement. Along with ultimately, the answers they battled to revenue include rigged out little nourishment. Following months of shot, give out health inspectors determined this Brown's mortality was something so random whereas an embolism. Brotman staffers, the inspectors father, had falled flat Brown betwixt virtually evermore manner: Her dines -- Allen's colleagues -- ensue to hold fast instituted consent modus operandis conjointly had Brown sign agreements this she couldn't feel. Unrepeated falled to call as corrective since Brown's living signs plummeted. Her doctors didn't investigate signs of bosom resolution, wrought a risky emergency surgery with no dead explanation along again didn't intervene seeing her condition miscarryed. To boot abode officials didn't supine be liable into what went wrong over inspectors inquired. There's plenty more in this long investigative article. Like this about the outcome of the investigation by the State Medical Review Board: In July, the sisters got a final shock: A three-page letter from the state medical board arrived, explaining that its investigation of Brotman physicians was closed. Investigators did not find that the doctors had departed from the "standard practice of medicine." Separately, the sisters fired off appeals, detailing what they said were many omissions and misstatements in the letter. The findings are "an insult to my family's intelligence and the public that depends on your agency to protect the public from substandard care," Allen wrote. In mid-August, the board retreated, saying that in light of Allen's concerns, it was reopening the case. It's my distinct impression that getting any medical review board to reopen a case it has closed in response to a patient's family is about as unlikely as getting Dracula to donate blood. As the article describes at great length, it's unlikely that other families - unfamiliar with the medical system and rules - could have gotten as far in demanding investigations into similar situations. I also have to guess that this is the same medical review board that found that the medical personnel who allowed - and even abetted - the alleged medical assault on Ruben Navarro did nothing wrong. Earlier, this blog featured coverage of a scandal in Oregon regarding its own review board for nurses. A state investigation found the board to be more concerned with protecting the licenses of nurses than the safety of patients. Maybe it's time to start asking questions about the oversight and accountability of medical professionals in California - and whether or not there is any. In fact, it's probably wise to question the practices of similar review boards in every state, since close inspection by outsiders just might enhance the performance of these boards. --Stephen Drake Cheap Viagra cialis viagra Generic Viagra
Nursing-home residents' kin pressure state
Posted on April 29, 2008 in Prescription drug insurance
NURSING HOMES By BETH MILLER Wilmington [DE] News Journal, 04/27/2006 "Two families of former nursing-home residents have refused to release their loved ones' medical records unless the General Assembly's Joint Sunset Committee appoints an independent commission to review the state agency that inspects and licenses nursing homes." FULL STORY viagra generic viagra online Generic Viagra cheap viagra