The following is the complete text of Chairman Edward Bramson's letter to the editor of Business Week:

April 14, 2005

The Editor
BusinessWeek
1221 Avenue of The Americas
New York, New York 10020

Dear Sir,

BusinessWeek has recently given significant coverage to Ampex's highly successful patent licensing program. Unfortunately, we did not feel it was appropriate to conduct an interview with you prior to the filing of our 10-K report with the SEC and your publishing schedule did not allow you to wait. Having now seen the articles which were informative and, in general, balanced, we would like to provide some comments.

The stories may leave the reader with the impression that patent licensing is a recent development for Ampex. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as we have actively licensed our patents since 1968. The majority of the best known names in consumer electronics are our licensees and have been for many years. Our patents generated hundreds of millions of dollars of income for us before we received our first dollar of royalty income from digital still cameras late last year.

It is true that we have recently initiated some high-profile patent lawsuits. However, the number of patent suits that we have been involved in is very small in the context of more than 35 years of licensing history. By far, the majority of license agreements that we have put in place result solely from the reasonable give-and-take of negotiation. The decades-long relationships that we have maintained with many of our licensees are testimony to the fact that they view our dealings with them to be mutually beneficial and I do not think that "patent terrorist" is a term that can fairly be applied to Ampex.

A more thoughtful approach might focus on the good that, on balance, patents and also copyrights confer on our society. The patents that Ampex has received were developed by an absolutely outstanding group of electronics engineers, and their inventions are found in many products that we all now benefit from. Income from our patents provides salaries for the people who work with us today and continued pension benefits for those who are now retired. It would surely be unfair to these people and to our shareholders not to obtain a reasonable return on their efforts. That is why, on the rare occasions that we are called upon, we vigorously and equitably enforce our intellectual property rights.

Unlike many companies nowadays, Ampex has always manufactured most of its products in the United States. In part, this has been made possible by the existence of our patent portfolio. If patent enforcement becomes more difficult, the "outsourcing" of engineering and intellectual property jobs to other countries will, inevitably, follow in the footsteps of manufacturing employment. Abuses of patents probably do occur occasionally, but I believe that commentators and critics should carefully consider the adverse implications for our country of a change in public policy towards an anti-patent bias.

BusinessWeek also quotes a source suggesting that Ampex should make public, copies of our license agreements. Based on certain exceptions that apply to companies like Ampex, we believe that this is not required, and in my years with the company it has not previously been raised as an issue. In our public filings, including our forthcoming 10-K report, we make a good faith effort to disclose and, as importantly, to explain clearly all of the information about our patent licenses that an investor might reasonably expect.

The magazine's mention of a loan to a company owned by me to buy shares of Ampex is accurate but incomplete. It might be helpful to add that these shares were purchased directly from Ampex in 1995, for a combination of cash and a note, to create a performance incentive in place of bonuses or option grants. From 1992 to 2000 I received neither options nor bonuses and the shares were eventually forfeited. My personal cash outlay to pay for the shares was such that Ampex received more money from me than the total of all cash compensation that it has paid to me from 1992 until today.

The website that mentioned me in connection with Goldman Sachs is not, in fact, mine as suggested in the article. The reference, which was to a period in the early 1970s, should have made it clear that I was then on assignment and not an employee. This will be done in the future. Finally, I admit to being a British immigrant but my mother, now deceased, was an American and I am totally devoted to my adopted home.

We appreciate your coverage of Ampex's recent successes and the efforts that you have made to present both sides of the story. I hope that this letter adds some additional flavor and balance. I realize that you have limited space but I would ask that, if you do elect to print this letter, you will do so in its entirety.

Yours sincerely,

Edward Bramson