Of course, I have an agenda. I am long PRKR, I believe that the patented technology works and that the patents are valid, and that Qualcomm infringes those patents. I hope the appeals court agrees with me and that the share price appreciates, as a result.
statesrip, on the other hand, claims to be totally disinterested in the outcome of the case and to be interested only in protecting truth, justice and the American way, while leaping over tall buildings in a single bound. That is why he is here, as he tells it.
Robert, it's a good thing for board watchers that you've already self defecated on any chance of a valid opinion. Anyone following your work has only not ignored your posts for pure entertainment pleasure. You Crack me up. QC or FW taking advantage of you as an ignorant pawn.
Robert, if you believe publishing a peer reviewed paper proves the technology, I have a criss-cross doubled balance mixer to sell you! It is labeled "mixer" and has differential (not balanced) inputs and outputs. It both creates the baseband before the TX filter AND in the TX capacitor by sampling energy into a capacitor. You might need a jury of peers to choose which method is supported by evidence. Peer reviewed papers are a joke as starved conferences will accept almost anything. If you want true peer validation, look at how many patents reference yours. Nobody references tech they think is #$%$ (such as WiMAX and it's Supporters)!
OK Robert, you claim to be skilled in the art. Please support your assertions with fact founded argument. Please exclude words like can't, never and fairydust they are words of a biased novice.
The appeal has a snowball's chance in hell of being won by Parkervision. The chance on appeal to CAFC from a DC on average is around 17% according to studies. Then many of those are partial reversals and referred back for retrial. Parkervision faces having the patents stripped of claims which adds another path for the chances to be reduced further. And the facts do not line up: the main point for winning on appeal comes down to evidence which Parkervision lacks. The appeal lamely tries to refute that. The response to the IPR is even more laughable.. it includes a bogus write up on technology that stands out like a sore thumb imo.
Sorry, the chances for PRKR winning a extremely low. If you had not protected your investment with hedging or stop-loss orders, you have yourselves to blame for poor investment practices and judgement on technology stocks. .
Another point: "You throw out these nebulous egregious references; "laws of physics", but never support your bias with any specific facts" That is #$%$-backwards: Parkervision has never put forward analytic support for their technology for me or anyone else to debunked in specific terms of the physics. If you do not know enough of the body of work in the field you cannot understand how I can make general points. However, ALL Parkervision ever has made are vague, general reference and inferences to how their technology works. They do not expose it to the type of specific criticism if peer-review literature had been produced/
I studied the patent applications since before they were granted and found the vague, unsupported 'invention' violated shannon-hartley and general understanding of someone skilled in the art in respect to noise impacts etc. I cannot point out specific equations because PV does not support their theory with such.
Parkervision's technology has been and remains "Fairy Dust' to this day and is going down as I imagined it would ~15 years ago.
I studied it long before Parkerscamavision filed its first patent. I helped write patent applications for an inventor of early digital acquisition technology and got intimate first hand knowledge of advanced signal acquisition. You and fellow advocates are novices ... Parkervision is an out of left field nut case company that either does not understand signal acquisition or is just scamming the market.
Same as it ever was.
Always funny to read those who proudly announce that someone else "got an agenta". I love the part where they act as if they do not.
Everyone has an agenda. Even my cat has an agenda, which is something all squirrels should be wary of.
I was looking at tickers this afternoon and though what ever happened to the Porker? 72 cents down from like 89 last time I checked. What, doesn't anyone believe that Jeff will be delivering the promised revenues in June like he said? Anyway I guess the appellate brief is sometime next month no? That should cause some action.
"You certainty are not objective." Can I hear an "Amen!" Long told me he tried to position himself as an action hero for truth and justice. BS indicator goes off constantly on this one. He's got an agenda alright.
Tried to email you but it bounced back. Apparently neither of us have a yahoo email address under the names we use on the message board. Seems the smart thing to do.
Robert, you're starting to believe your own BS. Go study sampling and integration. The mathematics are well understood, maybe not by you, but for anyone capable of and who cares to understand. There is nothing new in the individual pieces PV uses, they are well documented and proven, new is their use together as a high performance (low loss, high dynamic range, match filtered) downconverter.
You throw out these nebulous egregious references; "laws of physics", but never support your bias with any specific facts. Which law of physics? Why? PV's technology has been fully exposed since the patents. What new analysis or reference are you referring to that exposed anything? QC put zero information out on how or if PV's tech works at trial! What's truly impossible is to believe any of your biased assertions!
I can show you the way, but I can't make you understand, especially since you don't want to.
Let me try your stick: Qualcomm's receivers cannot work without energy sampling. Their mixers violate the laws of patents.
Response to oral argument order from the Appellant ParkerVision, Inc: designating Donald R. Dunner as arguing attorney. Designated time for argument: 12 minutes. Designated time for rebuttal: 3 minutes.
Response to oral argument order from the Cross-Appellant Qualcomm Incorporated: Designating Timothy S. Teter as arguing attorney. Designated time for argument: 15 minutes. Designated time for rebuttal: 0 minutes.
That's not what a jury decided. You make it sound so obvious. If it was that obvious, then Q's legal team would have had no problem convincing a jury of these assertions of yours. But they couldn't ---- and didn't.