They had revenue with their Camerman Product which was subsequently sold when the company started their wireless research.
The only case study similar to PRKR that I have knowledge of is ENER. They are a battery company that literally took decades to mature as a publicly traded R&D type company.
I personally am not convinced by the website attacks. It seems very wrong that naked short sales and market manipulation through "pen names" can be allowed to take place. There have been several court rulings against short sellers in the recent past. I trust this will be no different. Time will tell.
I was told long ago that Mr. Parker's father had a similar problem with patent protection with thermostat technologies which were eventually lost to competitors.
<<They had revenue with their Camerman Product which was subsequently sold when the company started their wireless research.>>
They had revenue from CameraMan, but not profits, which I think is the poster's point. Several years elapsed between the beginning of wireless research and the sale of the video division, when it became clear they could not do both. Money from the sale of the video division was put to work in D2D/D2P research and development.
Just look at the facts. I don't need to state them for you, look it up on Yahoo Finance or anywhere else.
I particularly like the PRKR cash flow statement, which the Barron's article referred to. That's where you can see where PRKR has obtained the cash it has needed to keep filing patents and negotiating NDAs with prospective customers.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think PRKR management is lying. I think they really believe what they say.