Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • tyus_edney tyus_edney Aug 4, 2007 10:57 AM Flag

    More fun with last year's Q2 conf call

    Really, the funniest part of last year's Q2 call was when one impatient investor tried to nail down a timeline from Jeff, who is accustomed to thinking of the time to profitability on a geologic scale:

    �<Q>: Can you give us any kind of timetable at this point either most conservative or just give us some kind of expectation of what Jeff Parkers belief is, when he might be able to get something done?

    <A � Jeffrey Parker>: Well in the Q, that we just issued last night I was willing to find my name that we expect to consummate initial relationships in 2006 and I still feel and I can tell you it wasn�t, meaning later we were making statement decision, I sat with our sales team and our marketing team and engineering team and I said this is where I might find my name to, you guys think I am crazy and they realized no you are not crazy, this is moving a long and we do think we can these things going this year. So that�s how we feel in the company.�

    So here we are a year later, with only a half-assed �deal� with a waste water engineering and defense contracting company to PRKR�s credit, and even that came well into 2007. In a world where stocks are down 20% for a slight miss in revenue or earnings, I can�t believe this company can continue to deliver nothing year after year and get away with it. God help you longs when the big mutual funds who are in this thing too deep to sell finally realize they have been played for suckers.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • <It's pathetic seeing RounderMatt try and bluster his way out of this shredding. A first year engineering student could read this conversation and see through the babble and the feeble attempts to "catch" PVNotes in some sort of superficial contradiction. It's easy to figure out who knows what they are talking about, and the arguments are about as credible as trblvr's theories about an attempt to accumulate the stock on the cheap or talk down PRKR b/c of an investment in a competitor.>

      Wow, 100% insults about my lack of technical prowess, yet not one specific technical topic you want to try and take issue with me on?

      <The presence of Sterne is not hard to explain at all. PRKR has paid his firm millions of dollars over the years writing patents for their "inventions". It's the only thing they spend money on other than salaries- the patents on their balance sheet have a gross carrying amount (i.e. cost) of $13M. He has probably made more money from the PRKR fraud than anyone over the years. A patent attorney's reputation is not tarnished by patents that never come to fruition or make their inventors any money- in fact that is the fate of most patents.>

      You are turning logic on its head: Why would he join the board (twice) and raise his profile if the technology was bogus and management is committing fraud as you claim? If your contentions proved correct the company and its directors would surely be sued and their reputations and pocketbooks diminished. BTW, it appears this is the only public company board he's ever been on and it is very unusual for lawyers to join client boards, since the liability exposure and conflict concerns are huge ... it is a very bold move and one that demonstrates significant confidence in the technology and patents by someone clearly in the know.

      <Heavy insider selling is the only piece missing from what is otherwise a textbook stock promote. But at this point if Jeff Parker or any other insider started selling in a significant way the stock would collapse overnight, b/c the only thing keeping this thing going is a thin layer of credibility with an increasingly small number of people>

      Actually, it is even much less of a classic stock promotion than you are saying. Other than a now unemployed (at least not with Parkervision) Todd selling 500 shares a week (about 16k off a base of 950k million), there have been NO insider sales in almost five years! In fact, in the March 2003 secondary Jeffrey purchased more than he had ever sold and other family added significantly to their positions � very un-Ponzi like.

    • It's pathetic seeing RounderMatt try and bluster his way out of this shredding. A first year engineering student could read this conversation and see through the babble and the feeble attempts to "catch" PVNotes in some sort of superficial contradiction. It's easy to figure out who knows what they are talking about, and the arguments are about as credible as trblvr's theories about an attempt to accumulate the stock on the cheap or talk down PRKR b/c of an investment in a competitor.

      The presence of Sterne is not hard to explain at all. PRKR has paid his firm millions of dollars over the years writing patents for their "inventions". It's the only thing they spend money on other than salaries- the patents on their balance sheet have a gross carrying amount (i.e. cost) of $13M. He has probably made more money from the PRKR fraud than anyone over the years. A patent attorney's reputation is not tarnished by patents that never come to fruition or make their inventors any money- in fact that is the fate of most patents.

      The earlier post on the cult of PRKR is the best explanation of the company I can come up with. Heavy insider selling is the only piece missing from what is otherwise a textbook stock promote. But at this point if Jeff Parker or any other insider started selling in a significant way the stock would collapse overnight, b/c the only thing keeping this thing going is a thin layer of credibility with an increasingly small number of people. His only real option is to keep the charade going as long as possible, and hope in the mean time he can manage an impressive-sounding press release that will enable him to sell some stock. I'm sure to a certain extent after all these years he has come to believe his own BS.

    • If you read the PRKR literature, it does not say that they can eliminate the DSP, it says that they eliminate the extra cycles required for extensive noise reductiion. The unused cycles can be used for enhanced functionality, or not used at all, thus reducing power consumption.

    • if anyone believes anything Dr. PVnotes says, just go back a couple of posts, compare what he says I said to what I did say and ask yourself if he addressed what I actually did say. Obviously this guy is prepared to go on and on forever, but any fair minded judge would have told him to sit down and stop distorting by now.

      A Stanford PhD with the kind of experience these people claim to have would likely make $500-1000 an hour. What could possibly be worth this bogus time-consuming effort. They say it's altruism, that this is their great calling in life - stop the waste of money by Parkervision. Absurd! I say, not even profit, but only a connection to the massive financial exposure of that short position could motivate this. The only other possibility is a competitor like the Whole Foods thing.

      I�ve got to take a break now, and I'm sure they will try to filibuster and distract you away from the many lies and distortion they've been trapped into over the last few days. Try not to be fooled. Wait until Wednesday and listen carefully, with realistic expectations and, yes, if appropriate based on what Mr. Parker says, a reasonable degree of cynicism.

    • > Dr.PVnotes that implies that DSP he says was in the 2003 WiFi product could have had nothing to do with removing noise and that the demodulated data was clean enough to perform spectacularly without needing any noise removal at all.

      I didn't say this in any way shape or form, and in fact I completely disagree with it. D2D needs a DSP, with no qualification, and they used a DSP in the only D2D implementation ever done.

      The SignalMax laptop card used a ZyDas DSP chip, part number VT22387. The SignalMax router used a ZyDas ZD2001 DSP. I have quite clear pictures, I can email them if interested (pvnotes at gmail.com)

      > I think it is expensive [the DSP]

      Its not. Both Broadcom and Atheros offer integrated WIFI DSP plus complete transceivers on a single chip for well under $10 (I've heard it's under $5 in very large quantities)

      In any case, you are the only one making the completely ludicrous claim that it can be eliminated. It can't. I have not said it could be eliminated. Parkervision doesn't claim it can be eliminated. Only you claim this.

    • <Could you please have the decency>

      now you want decency, huh? again, laughable coming from you - a name-calling, insulting, blustering, proven town liar

    • <The DSP serves many purposes - "noise reduction" is a minor role - converting the baseband to digital is the main role, and CAN NOT BE ELIMINATED.>

      Well, I don't agree that it is minor, I think it is expensive, with the biggest cost being programming time chewed up in ever more complex implementations. However it's an interesting admission by Dr.PVnotes that implies that DSP he says was in the 2003 WiFi product could have had nothing to do with removing noise and that the demodulated data was clean enough to perform spectacularly without needing any noise removal at all. BTW, before you distort again, I'm not saying there isn't a small amount of noise in the D2D demodulated data, only that it might not even be enough to need removal in the DSP.

    • I admitted I was wrong about the compensation.

      I merely pointed why I was wrong - I posted from memory, used the top four executives (instead of top 3) and didn't notice that some of the compensation was in stock.

      You seem complete incapable of admitting or even recognizing when you are completely wrong; as, for example, on the DSP issue (or in fact on nearly every technical issue we've discussed).

      If I discover I am wrong about other points I will admit it and move on. Could you please have the decency to do likewise?

    • Give it up.

      Parkervison doesn't claim to eliminate the DSP - only you make that claim. The SignalMax cards used a conventional DSP - every teardown, including ours, agreed on that point. The DSP was built by ZyDas - I will have to find the part number. ZyDas is now owned by Atheros (acquired in Aug 2006). Do a search for "zydas parkervision", Parkervision never claimed to not use a DSP, in fact they said they use it in SEC filings. ZyDas was listed as a "major supplier".

      Repeat after me:
      The DSP can not be eliminated in a digital RF system. Parkervision does not eliminate the DSP from a digital system. Parkervision used a DSP in its 802.11b cards. Parkervision does not claim to eliminate the DSP from a digital RF system.

    • you admit that you're wrong and then distort again by including a fourth person that you didn't include before. It's fine to discuss compensation, but this is shading - another favorite tactic of the deceiver ... sound reasonable, admit a little fault, but try to blow by an extra person to make it seem like it wasn't off by 135% ... why do you even try to sound credible?

      <This adds up to $1.623M>

    • View More Messages
 
PRKR
3.58-0.03(-0.83%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT