JUDGE REJECTS IWERKS LAWSUIT.Byline: Dave McNary Daily News Staff Writer Giant-screen leader Imax Corp. announced Wednesday it had won a key court battle as a Los Angeles Los Angeles (lôs ăn`jələs, lŏs, ăn`jəlēz'), city (1990 pop. 3,485,398), seat of Los Angeles co., S Calif.; inc. 1850. federal judge tossed out a suit by rival Iwerks Entertainment Iwerks Entertainment was founded in 1985 by Stan Kinsey and Don Iwerks, two former Disney Executives, and became well known through 1996 as a leading developer of special venue and virtual reality theaters throughout the world. Inc. accusing Imax of antitrust Antitrust The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade. violations. The lawsuit, filed in early 1996, was dismissed Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Dikran Tevrizian following Imax's motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment n. a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded (testimony outside court) affidavits (or declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact, answers . Burbank-based Iwerks, which has about 5 percent of the market for giant-screen systems while Imax has the rest, had accused Imax of lying about Iwerks to clients by claiming it would be out of the giant-screen business. Iwerks, which has been mired mire n. 1. An area of wet, soggy, muddy ground; a bog. 2. Deep slimy soil or mud. 3. A disadvantageous or difficult condition or situation: the mire of poverty. v. in red ink red ink Health administration A popular term for financial losses. Cf in the Black. in recent quarters due to problems in its Asian markets, also accused Imax of restricting the supply of projectors that can show the predominant large-screen format and limiting the number of large-screen-format films available to theaters not using Imax equipment. Toronto-based Imax had no comment on the dismissal other than saying it had always maintained the claims were without merit. Iwerks executives were not available for comment. The Iwerks' suit came in response to an Imax patent-infringement action that was filed in 1994 after Iwerks helped start a company manufacturing projectors similar to Imax's devices. That suit was thrown out in May 1996. For Iwerks, the dismissal came eight days after its shareholders took the rare step of rejecting a management proposal. Iwerks officials had insisted that the company needed to buy Showscan Entertainment Inc., a rival in the motion-simulator business, in order to generate enough cash flow to compete effectively with Imax. Imax stock rose 9/16 to 28 3/16, while Iwerks fell 1/16 to 3 1/16. |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion