Mon, Mar 2, 2015, 10:39 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 21 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • pvnotes pvnotes May 23, 2009 3:24 PM Flag

    Requirements for a valid and enforceable patent

    There are several reasons as to why the ParkerVision D2P patents issued so far are almost surely invalid and unenforceable.

    The most fundamental reason is the duty of a patent to teach the invention so that a person a ordinary skill can implement and practice the invention.

    "Enablement – Patent law requires that a patent application describe the claimed invention in such a way that anyone of ordinary skill in the technology that the invention is concerned with will be able to make and use the claimed invention."

    As even the supporters of ParkerVision have stated (in a recent thread and in past postings), ParkerVision does not do this in the issued D2P patents. The PRKR supporters claim that even a skilled PA designer will be unable to understand the D2P technology - due to too much knowledge and expertise, I suppose.

    Every PA expert I've talked to thinks the D2P explanations, patents and paper(s) don't work - i.e. they don't result in an improvement in efficiency. There are only two cases here

    (1) D2P, in fact, doesn't work


    (2) D2P works, but ParkerVision has been unable or unwilling to explain how it works in the patent filings - and not just to a person of ordinary skill, but to the best PA designers in the world.

    In either case, the D2P patents are valueless. In (1) they have no value because they don't work and in (2) they have no value because they are invalid and unenforceable.

    It is conceivable that PRKR has deliberately (or incompetently) obscured the patents and intends (someday) to submit new patents that actually "teach" something of value. Maybe. I don't believe anyone would be so silly, and in any case, the patent date would be of the new patent(s) (and hence even more vulnerable to prior art). In any case, this means that the millions of dollars spent so far for patents has been wasted.

    There are other reasons for invalidity, which I will cover in a later posting.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • like ITT, huh?

      >They were hired w/ fanfare and rejoicing only to leave NEVER heard from again.

    • Your last post verges on reason.
      A few things I would add..."statements on this board that all of the potential customers have looked at the technology and rejected it..." leaves out the very credible sources of those statements...not only Farmwald, Paldus, and Cripps, but quotes from PrairieComm, IBM, etc...and the long parade of those like Petrick, Baker etal...They were hired w/ fanfare and rejoicing only to leave NEVER heard from again.
      You write " That view, implicitly, assumes that there are no contracts-..." I think there will be a contract of the Symbol Tech. PrairieCom, IBM, Texas Ins.,'s a long list, ilk. A contract that ultimately comes to negative naught. Money will be spent, papers will be signed, people will be quoted, conference calls will be made. Profit will never materialize.
      My take on JP is he is something much more banal than "the Antichrist". He was a dreamer with a poor academic background who's whole heart (and ego) was in that video biz. Now it's all about the fall-out from that long ago failure.
      I will join you in your view that "this is not a sure thing for either longs or shorts." Nothing is in the investment world of today.
      " I will end this post as it is considerably less colorful than the more strident statements from both sides."
      Me too.

    • hate to admit it, but both the shorts and longs can make great money here.....particularly the "short shorts" and the "long longs"....insert "term".....and, yes, drank too much tequilla last night

    • cap -

      You ask why they don't put a lot more effort into convincing skeptics that the technology works. They could do that and, if they succeeded, it would certainly have a positive effect on the price of the stock. I think the management sees its job, however, as developing the technology and selling it to people who can pay for it. In that view, if you monetize the product, the stock price will take care of itself. In that view, the only ones you have to convince are the customers.

      This, of course, conflicts with the statements on this board that all of the potential customers have looked at the technology and rejected it. That view, implicitly, assumes that there are no contracts - that they are fabrications in a massive securities fraud. And JP is the Antichrist and so on and on...

      In time, either the longs or the shorts will make money (which is not quite the same thing as having been right about the stock). The shorts have a point when they point out the absence of peer reviewed articles and presentations. It is not, IMHO, a dispositive point, but it is a point.
      They have other points that I would concede. Good sense suggests that this is not a sure thing for either the longs or the shorts.

      But certainty and hyperbolic rhetoric are more interesting than I will end this post as it is considerably less colorful than the more strident statements from both sides.

    • Rounder - that line of BS was getting old years ago. The whole thing is so pathetic it's almost funny. It does amaze me how long you fellas at prkr have kept this fetid pos alive though.

    • this looks like a hilarious desperate, grasping for anything line of bull by the disingenuous Shredvauld Gang. Here they are as a sample phone and next ITT announcement are due out literally any day for the next 3 1/2 weeks trying to scare PRKR investors about imminent bankruptcy and presentations for conferences that only matter to university-based technologists and others seeking credibility and funding for theory level technologies. Why the heck would PV want to give lessons on how to duplicate their technology to competitors and shorts? Instead, it's obviously much more in their interest to just show the phone and sign up real customers based on obvious benefits.

    • urspond - so why do they seem to not want to present this supposed amazing new technology to the world by having a serious presentation at a decent RF conference in which they explain the principles? Secrecy is not the issue since they have published the patents. If JP can get his head around the math I expect Dr F and Dr C could stumble their way thru it too ... and if d2d, d2p, d2o and d2whatever is not an elaborate sham it would help the pathetic stock price and enable JP to raise $$$ to survive another year. The reluctance to do this is very incriminating imho

    • "Are we not men, no we are DEVO."

    • Commie?

      The previous "analysis" was much better. Now you've devolved into emptiness; you could do better, but fail to be consistent.

    • Well, as "scat" goes, PRKR is in a class all by itself. It "seems" that scatology is the perfect term to associate with the study of PRKR as an "investment"

    • View More Messages
0.9893+0.0392(+4.13%)10:38 AMEST

Trending Tickers

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.