Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 4:40 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • BJingles BJingles Jul 31, 2007 1:33 AM Flag

    the Sermon on the Patent

    Lets move on. Today's topic and opinion: What is Parkervision worth?

    Reach into your pew books and open to the Book of Parkervision, chapter 2006 verse 10K page 8 et al.

    These are the words of Parkervision: �We consider our intellectual property, including patents, patent applications and trademarks, to be significant to our competitive positioning. ����In addition, in February 2007, we were granted our first United States patent specifically related to our d2p transmit technology.����If our patents and intellectual property do not provide us with the anticipated market protections and competitive position, our business and prospects will be impaired. �

    Blessed be the words of Parkervision. Amen.

    (You may now be seated.)

    Parkervision has accumulated a variety of patents over the years. First from the money-loosing video business namesake they sold and then for D2D, the revolutionary technology that took a decade to sign up zero customers. There are also some for the 802.11 wireless gear that lost millions. Some of these patents are still issuing.

    But there is the D2P patent, number 7,184,723.

    I hope the longs agree that this is where the true value is. If you are an investor, this is what you have invested in. As the value of the D2P patent goes, so goes the investment.

    As I see it, the PV video patents, D2D patents, and wireless router patents have been deemed by the marketplace as worthless. There are lots of them because the company tends to equate quantity with quality. But, a decade+ of no royalties pretty much sums up the value.

    But, if I understand correctly, Parkervision has an agreement with ITT regarding the D2P patent 7,184,723. There are follow on patent applications which will follow, but �723 is the core idea. You can look up patents for free at www.uspto.gov

    At the present $300 million market valuation for Parkervision, it appears to me that most of the value is in this patent. What else is there?

    In my opinion, the D2P it�s the crown jewel, so to speak.

    How do you value such a jewel? Like anything else: Supply and demand.

    Demand takes the form of licenses and the royalties they might provide. Since years of mobile phone sales attempts have failed, everyone is focused on the defense sector and the possibilities collectively represented by the ITT relationship. The investors hope for big money from this. Time will tell.

    Most of the discussions on this board trace back to a demand side belief. However, the supply side of the equation is just as important.

    Valuation of patents is an inexact science. They can be very fragile. For example, what if the D2P patent was found invalid? Then, people would not have to pay a royalty to use it.

    Once again from the Book of Parkervision: �If our patents and intellectual property do not provide us with the anticipated market protections and competitive position, our business and prospects will be impaired.�

    Patents are not like gold in the bank. Changes in law, prior art discovery, interference proceedings, and a host of other unfavorable events can wipe out their value with the stroke of a judge's pen.

    Thus, it's my opinion that an investment in Parkervision is an investment in the D2P patent. An investor might want to factor in how that value can change and often does.

    Three hundred million is lots of money for a patent. Particularly for one never tested in court and never applied in a production product.

    Maybe ITT will affirm the value in a very positive way. Yet, still, it's an off-the-scale amount for most patents.

    The only thing more humerous is that fellow predicting $300 per share. That's a market cap of over $7 Billion.

    So, I'm going to leave you folks to study patent value for a while. I will continue with some things that I hope you find both interesting and educational shortly.



    [to be continued]

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • As I first learned while only a junior examiner back in 1990, even steps backward are patentable if they are new and unobvious.

      That must explain the "fast and furious" rate at which PRKR is having their patents issue. Since most patents expire worthless, it will be amusing to see how much the PRKR portfolio fetches when the company has to sell off its assets in bankruptcy.

    • the big picture is you were picking up on the Cripps/Farmwald accusation that PV is unaware of the "bonehead" approach - outphasing concepts that failed long ago. But when one looks at the actual patents, it is easy to conclude three things - 1st that PV is well aware of what has transpired in the past, 2nd that they have a different approach that none of you can explain (in fact, this is admitted by Cripps in his report and Farmwald right here on this board a couple of months ago), and finally that the patents for what you claim to be very old inventions are issuing rapid fire for PV from the USPTO.

      Of course now you think you have something new to confuse people with in the Smith patent, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever - where's it being used? who's developing Smith's invention? "Former PV employee continues working on RF technology, film at 11" - big deal

    • "Since I had not been speaking about the 816 patent at all today"

      that's the point: you not speaking about the more important aspects of d2p, and you are engaging as usual in specious-sounding (not even specious) speculation, when you have a track record of wasting peoples' time with similar nonsense

    • Well, at least you have learned to make a clear point - that you think '816 is where PV's "core technology" lies. Too bad it will expire worthless.

      Since I had not been speaking about the 816 patent at all today, I will leave it to your vast audience to decide who is resorting to "old tricks"!

    • Wow, I thought this response to Falsie did the trick. But it was too technical for the likes of you....

      http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?m=tm&bn=14618&tid=27379&mid=27500&tof=-1&rt=1&frt=2&off=1

    • "You have not disputed that he is a former PRKR employee/contractor listed on some of their old D2D patents and applications,"

      nor have you disputed that this patent has nothing to do with PV's core technology in 816 or its progeny. nor have you provided anything but speculation that Smith's patent means anything to PV. Sorry, but this looks like your same old tricks.

    • http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?bn=14618&tid=27554&mid=27658

      i mis-remembered and gave you too much credit: you actually gave up on your patent mobo jumbo in december, but kept bantering about other nonsense for a couple more months.

    • <<you miss my point again: it is just very unlikely this is anything relevant at all to PV,>>

      Given your lack of technical and IP comprehension skills, the investing community can give your probability filter the deference and weight it merits.

      <<much less to its core technology>>

      As JP's definition of "core technology" is a perpetually moving target, I will continue to focus on patent claims. You can continue to do what you get paid to do.

      <<, and you haven't done anything but speculate on a connection>>

      Well, the facts speak for themselves - everyone is free to read the '716 patent (and every putative investor in this stock promotion scheme should do so) and the publically accessible communications going back and forth between the USPTO and Sterne et al. You have not disputed that Smith is the ONLY inventor on the '716 patent. You have not disputed that he is a former PRKR employee/contractor listed on some of their old D2D patents and applications, nor have you disputed that he is not listed on ANY of the ones dealing with pre-distortion to compensate for non-linearities in a constant envelope amplification scheme (despite that being taught by Smith in the '716 patent.)

      << - I refer all readers again back to what made you bug out the last time, where you went on and on with similar claims that turned out to be completely dismissed by the very documents you kept citing.>>

      That is too funny. All my "similar claims" were and continue to be unrebutted. Find the post that proves otherwise. I can show you my post from February where I said I had closed my short position and that everyone would know when I was interested again by the frequency of my posting.


      <<Your game is sounding technical enough to make people think your not-that-easy-to-checkup-on facts are in fact true.>>

      Again, your time honored obfuscation techniques are obviously very comforting to you. All of my facts are, in fact, very easy to check up on - that is why I included links. You on the other hand, have done no research at all - you just keep drinking the JP cool-aid.

      <<I've already been down that road with you and anyone else should go back and see where it led before they waste their time on you, as I once did or, worse still, actually trust your "facts" and conclusions.>>

      Yeah, you hate to waste time - that is why you have to respond to every one of my posts on a Sunday. That is too funny!

      Keep it coming, Mike! Thanks for brightening my day!!!!

    • you miss my point again: it is just very unlikely this is anything relevant at all to PV, much less to its core technology, and you haven't done anything but speculate on a connection, which based on your track record is really a joke - I refer all readers again back to what made you bug out the last time, where you went on and on with similar claims that turned out to be completely dismissed by the very documents you kept citing.

      Your game is sounding technical enough to make people think your not-that-easy-to-checkup-on facts are in fact true.

      I've already been down that road with you and anyone else should go back and see where it led before they waste their time on you, as I once did or, worse still, actually trust your "facts" and conclusions.

    • At the risk of redundancy a la my last post, I did not see Smith's name on 11/509,031 or any of its progeny, for example.

      If you can't pull your head out of your a$$ long enough to actually look into what is being posted, you should refrain from shooting your shoot mouth off, Mike.

    • View More Messages
 
PRKR
1.39+0.02(+1.46%)4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.