[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
So can Sony 3/4" be baked in a manner similar to open reel tape to
temporarily alleviate the problem?
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
> The problem of binder hydrolysis (sticky shed) is obviously, from the
other
> responses, not limited to a particular brand or a particular type of tape.
> As this is an audio list, I thought I might add some additional
information
> from the video field that might not be as familiar to some of the list
> members.
>
> "Sticky shed" is quite common in the video tape field. The most common
> offenders are: Ampex 2", Memorex 2", 3M 2", Kodak 1", Fuji 1" (H621 only),
> Sony 3/4" and Agfa 3/4". It does appear in other tapes but less
frequently
> and is, usually, less severe. Of course, if you expose any polyester tape
> to enough moisture for a long time, you are likely to get binder
hydrolysis.
>
> Peter Brothers
> President
> SPECS BROS., LLC
> (201) 440-6589
> www.specsbros.com
>
> Restoration and Disaster Recovery Service Since 1983
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> > [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Green
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:38 PM
> > To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex & Sticky Shed Syndrome
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>