BJ - I really don't feel like I even have an argument with you anymore. From the below you're admitting the technology might function in a unique way, that you don't know how well, that it might make huge profits, and that you're basically hanging your hat on the patents failing ... now that would really be something, wouldn't it - arguably the best patent attorney and firm in the world, who even joined the board twice and made bullish public statements, charging us millions for dozens of worthless patents ... dream on!
And spare us your distortions about the company's technology, history and evolution. btw, they don't seem too worried ... looks like they're ready to talk and take questions in just a few days.
<Humor aside, the recent output of the PTO turns this into a three-legged stool.
Leg 1; It doesn�t work, or at least it doesn�t provide an efficiency improvement (effectively the same thing).
Leg 2; Even if it does work, it doesn�t make economic sense.
Leg 3; Even if does work and even if it makes economic sense, the patent may be invalid.
"I'm just tired of the endless nonsense that is Parkervision"
You are not so tired of it that you can't post nonsense about it in the wee hours of the morning. Why is that? If you have no stake, it makes no sense whatsoever. If you are short, and what you say is true, all you have to do is sit back in silence and watch the house of cards crumble.
But that won't do. Because what you say is untrue. You hope to spread fear that it is true in order to stave off the ultimate disaster for you and your friends. Perhaps a macro event like a stock market crash will occur before ParkerVision comes to a definitive agreement with an OEM.
And you are not simply addressing shareholders. You also hope to spread fear about patents among potential customers, so that they will have to do more DD before signing an agreement, again delaying the inevitable. After all, the fortunes of the shorts do not depend on the retail investors here. Not in a stock that is so heavily owned by insiders and institutions.
Give it your best shot. Your disingenuousness is self-evident. Truth will out, and not to your advantage.
Your "Pvision religion" post is inherently flawed in ways that are hard to enumerate.
First, the three-legged stool you describe is one that supports the short-seller, not a true believer. If any one of the legs fail -- it works, it makes economic sense, the patent is valid -- it is the short position that loses support and crashes.
Second, you deride the shareholders for sitting still on a far more secure three-legged stool while executives give options to board members. If you believe the technology doesn't work, makes no economic sense, and is based on worthless patents, then the options granted to board members are worthless. You imply they are worth something, so much that they represent excessive compensation.
Your arguments are so flimsy and your position so tenuous that even you can't make sense of them any more.
In the last 11 years, Parkervision has had no material revenue from D2D (or D2P). Every year, Jeff Parker makes new promises, new business plans, new commitments and raises another $20M or so from a new set of investors. Every year the company loses another $20M or so, year after year after year. Every year, there is a new hype artist with a fresh new ID, claiming to be awestruck at Jeff Parker's genius, at the revolutionary D2D, D2P - dredging up the same old arguments and clearly passing on half-understood statements fed to him by the Parkervision "ecosystem".
I am quite confident that the both D2D and D2P are BS. I have been confident for 4 or 5 years, and I've always been proven right. I'm just tired of seeing this amount of money wasted ($160M and counting) on such complete and utter nonsense.
Right now, you want to hype the stock so you can get out, make some money and move on, just like the investors from each past cycle. You're hoping that you can leave someone else "holding the bag", by making transparently and blatantly silly pseudo-technical statements, name-calling, and belligerence and hoping at least a few investors find them convincing.
I'd say we'll see who right, but in six months with no progress from Parkervison, you'll move on, and a new set of hypesters will show up (URSPOND and Trublvrprkr will never leave). Jeff will be raising a new PIPE on "complete confidence" in the immanence of an OEM deal ("when not if") - he has to since they'll be out of money - again - by June 08, and no chance of material revenues in the meantime. How long can this idiotic and pointless treadmill go on?
PVnotes: <<D2P doesn't work>>
because you say so? Look I understand about your six PhDs, but almost anyone who reads this thread would conclude that you have absolutely no credibility ... it's like punching a cloud, you get burned and change the subject over and over again. Now is that because you're stupid ... of course not. It's because you either work for someone who is short and scared or a Parkervision competitor. There can be no other explanation. If you were confident in what you say - that the products are bs, etc. - you would simply let the stock run up and short some more or you would let them go bankrupt. there's no other possible reason for you to work so hard trying to distort and disparage at 1 am no less. But you're really starting to look silly. Good night.
I stand corrected - Jeff Parker is still selling D2D. Unfortunately he's selling D2D to (nontechnical) investors and not to (technical) OEMs.
There is a flaw in your analysis - D2P doesn't work, which is why he can't sell it to cellular OEMs. With your argument, D2D depends on D2P. No D2P sales implies no D2D sales.
In any case, essentially all of the potential customers for D2P have indicated to us that they have looked at D2P and that they have no interest in working with Parkervision. They say that they don't believe D2P has any advantages and that the business model is totally broken - no one would ever pay more than a 5% royalty (about 5-6 cents) even if it did work.
Look, it's been nearly two and half years since Parkervision announced D2P. They still can't show a working chip, even though they claimed they had a prototype in Jan 2005. You say you've listened to the Parkervision conference calls. On nearly every call since Mar 2005, Jeff has been "confident" that he will close a tier-1 cellular OEM "in the next 3 - 6 months" - the same refrain over and over again. It's getting pretty old.
I'll send you transcripts if you don't believe me.
<In any case, you're arguing the wrong technology. Jeff Parker isn't even trying to sell D2D at this point (and nobody is interested in buying anyway). D2D is a dead technology - success or failure depends completely on D2P. >
Of course this is completely wrong too -- just listen to Mr. Parker on the most recent conf. calls ... it's crystal clear that the transmit product (D2P) was broken out because it is an easier implementation to convince OEMs that Parkervision's technology is worth investing in and they very much want and expect the next step to be adoption of D2D. A very sensible approach to breaking through with distruptive technology and one he gets very little credit for on this board.
These obvious distortions are becoming almost ridiculous, but just in case the speciousness is fooling anyone, let's try it again:
<I'm not sure what shielding has to do with sensitivity... Shielding is needed to protect external components that are sensitive to noise - especially important in a non-highly-integrated superhet receiver when the IF was external. Early wireless cards weren't very highly integrated, and so needed shielding.>
Two different topics entirely. Your ignoring what Gordon said contemporaneously about shielding in his 2004 note I just reproduced as though he only referenced shielding - read again, he talks about both shielding (from noise) and db gain (sensitivity).
<Receiver sensitivity is measured by a number, typically a number between -85 and -110 dBm. (-85 is terrible, -110 would be really good). Parkervision never published the recieve sensitivity of the only D2D chip ever implemented - the 802.11b chip. Those of us with suspicious minds think that the specs were never published because they weren't very good. If they were any good, why not brag about them - they brag about everything else? How do you sell a technology if you won't or can't tell people how well it works?>
Simple to prove ... again contemporaneously (in 2004) I just plugged in my Wifi card and immediately got improved sensitivity from my non-Parkervision router (and everyone elses in my neighborhood).
<In any case, have you opened up any other cards? Take any random modern Broadcom- or Atheros-based card. They need little or no shielding, mostly because the chips are so highly integrated. Again, D2D has no advantage whatsoever over the alternative direct conversion receivers. It is not more sensitive, not lower power, not lower cost...>
Predictably you are not comparing like time-periods. As I already emphasized, in 2003/2004 you could prove the components had very low noise (not very high as you claim), simply by opening up the units and observing there was no shielding ... with today's technology you would have to determine there is much lower or no noise reduction in the dsp stage, but in 2003/2004 all you had to do was open them up and look for shielding. That proves there was no material noise, and in today's technology that means no engineering in the dsp to weed out noise - an obvious economic and technical advantage to oems trying to rapidly bring innovative products to market.
<We measured the actual power of the D2D card - it was definitely on the high side. You are merely observing that the power consumed by the wireless card in a laptop is fairly incidental to the power consumed by the display and CPU. It simply doesn't matter whether the power of the wireless card is high or low, unless it is outrageously high.> First, you're ignoring what I said about a first generation chip from a company with limited resources surely being impacted by lack of conventional shrinking and IC enhancements. Secondly you miss the point entirely - if the design is more power efficient (even if the first implementation was far from reaching potential) the advantages in the cellular world would be far greater than in the laptop world ... eventually though evolution will make it important in both.
> Single channel, no shielding, no additional DSPs and no additional amplification circuits.
This is simply wrong. There was an external LNA (low noise amplifier) in all of the SignalMax units. I still have some of the units, and there are pictures of the units still on the web which clearly show the LNA, including the manufacturer and the part number.
Also, there was an external DSP (not Parkervision designed).
The output power was 1.5-2x higher than most wireless cards - which meant a more expensive power amp.
The SignalMax units used a antenna which had (from memory) 3-5 db of gain. They paid a $1M in stock for rights to the antenna - it was in a 10Q or 10K from about 4 or 5 years ago. (From memory, Cross Technology - I can look it up if necessary.)
Also, the SignalMax access point had two receivers (which doubled the power and cost) and two antennas which adds another 2-3 db of gain. The laptop and USB cards were, as I remember, single channel.
The range could (and was) easily explained by the combination of dual-receiver access point (2-3 dB), higher output power (2-3 dB), antenna gain (3-5 dB), LNA (2-4 dB?), and and some signal processing tricks (? dB - done in the DSP which allowed the SignalMax radio to shift to very low bandwidths at long range). Totaled up, the "tricks" gave the SignalMax cards roughly 10-15 dB of extra margin. You need 6-10 dB of gain to double range (it depends on the environment), so it's not at all obvious that any of the range increase was due to the D2D receiver (i.e. the D2D receiver could have had worse sensitivity and the SignalMax cards would still have achieved a significant increase in range from the "tricks".)
None of the tricks were bad things (they did increase the range) - but to say they didn't exist is simply wrong. The "tricks" did made the cards *very* expensive to manufacture - which is why other companies didn't use them. Shielding maybe saved them 5-10 cents (it's just a small piece of metal), but the "tricks" probably cost $10-20 extra in BOM cost. Go back and look at the 10Ks and 10Qs - Parkervision was losing money big time on each card even at $80-$100 each, much less at lower prices, which is where everyone else was.
I'm not sure what shielding has to do with sensitivity... Shielding is needed to protect external components that are sensitive to noise - especially important in a non-highly-integrated superhet receiver when the IF was external. Early wireless cards weren't very highly integrated, and so needed shielding.
Receiver sensitivity is measured by a number, typically a number between -85 and -110 dBm. (-85 is terrible, -110 would be really good). Parkervision never published the recieve sensitivity of the only D2D chip ever implemented - the 802.11b chip. Those of us with suspicious minds think that the specs were never published because they weren't very good. If they were any good, why not brag about them - they brag about everything else? How do you sell a technology if you won't or can't tell people how well it works?
In any case, have you opened up any other cards? Take any random modern Broadcom- or Atheros-based card. They need little or no shielding, mostly because the chips are so highly integrated. Again, D2D has no advantage whatsoever over the alternative direct conversion receivers. It is not more sensitive, not lower power, not lower cost...
We measured the actual power of the D2D card - it was definitely on the high side. You are merely observing that the power consumed by the wireless card in a laptop is fairly incidental to the power consumed by the display and CPU. It simply doesn't matter whether the power of the wireless card is high or low, unless it is outrageously high.
In any case, you're arguing the wrong technology. Jeff Parker isn't even trying to sell D2D at this point (and nobody is interested in buying anyway). D2D is a dead technology - success or failure depends completely on D2P.