Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 9:57 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 3 mins

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • BJingles BJingles Jun 6, 2011 11:45 PM Flag

    The second smartest guy in the room.

    Finally, finally after spending a quarter billion dollars over two decades with no tangible business to show for it, someone in the 1Q conference call of May 24 asks a tough question:

    Attributed on pvnotes web site to a caller named Robert. More info available there.

    Robert: “I've just got one other question and I'd really like to see you answer this, I don't know if you're aware but there is a bear story out there.

    And there's been several comments made of why your technology just isn't what you claim it is. I guess they're hanging their hat on the fact that it's been several years now and you've never gotten a contract and that really is the bottom line and I think if shareholders saw a contract that would be a very, very happy day.

    And I just would like you to comment somewhat on the bear story out there about not getting the contract and your technology just not being able to do what you claim it does.”

    Jeff Parker: “You know, Bob, I'm definitely not going to go into these nutty bearish stories. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to let our technology and the orders we're going to get speak for themselves.”

    Robert: “OK, thank you”.

    Jeff: “Thank you. You bet”.

    We’ll Robert, when I heard that one it reminded me of the Mel Brooks role as the governor in ”Blazing Saddles” when he said “We’ve got to protect our phony baloney jobs!”.

    Yes, I believe he is aware of the bearish stories.

    Lets ponder that line: “I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to let our technology and the orders we're going to get speak for themselves.”

    Seems to me that is exactly what has been going on as the nutty stock went from $50 to less than $1.

    Robert, if you research the past, you may find the orders have been speaking for years. The cell phone market is one of the fastest moving in the world and many other innovations have succeeded in much less time.

    So, Robert, “tip o’ the hat” to you for asking the question and being (in my mind at least) the second smartest person in the (virtual) room. It should be obvious that the smartest is the one the investors gave their money to.

    If you want to get a little smarter, try reading the past call transcripts on the pvnotes.com web site. Go back a few years and try the I.T.T. story, or T.I., or one of the other golden oldies.

    The somewhat nutty opinions are my own.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • McCool will not withdraw notwithstanding the "bashers" speculation re same. He has a big WINNER, he knows it, and soon the approximately 10 million shorts will pay dearly.

    • PVNotes is partially right, but what actually happens depends entirely on the stage of the case. If they are right up to trial and withdrawal of counsel would screw up the trial date (and thus the court calendar) than a court likely would not let McKool withdraw. In any other situation McKool won't have any trouble withdrawing - don't forget that PRKR still has their strip counsel local law firm on the pleadings and counsel of record as well. So McKool would argue (successfully) that PRKR wouldn't be left high and dry without counsel when they are allowed to withdraw.

    • > then simply withdraw if PRKR can no longer pay due to running out of money?

      I didn't know the answer so I searched a bit. Here's an representative answer:

      "Walking Away

      If a fee payment impasse develops, the lawyer cannot ethically cease representation when the client will be prejudiced – for example, by withdrawing within 60 days of a court date. In the ABA's Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16 ("Declining or Terminating Representation") allows lawyers to withdraw if "the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled." If you try to withdraw without adequate communication on and careful records of the client's billing and payment performance, the result may be a State bar disciplinary action requiring future "involuntary servitude" (or pro bono work) to fulfill your ethical obligations toward the client."

      http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/fin09061.shtml

    • You can't just withdraw from the case. You have to file a motion to be permitted to withdraw as counsel for the client. In this case, you would never see such a motion, and no judge would grant it.

      For the real investors reading this board, note how frequent posters ignore answering the basic question of- if PV is such a dog, why did MCKool Smith accept the case- after having its technical personnel examine the patents- on a contingency basis? That's the only thing that really lets me sleep at night.

    • If you were addressing my question, I am the first to admit I could be wrong. Happens all the time. However I was not making a statement, I was asking a question. What responsibility does a lawyer have to continue representing a client when the client runs out of money, if the lawyer knew that the strong possibility existed on taking the case? This is a question not a statement of opinion? TIA.

    • You are just plain wrong

    • This does raise an interesting question to which I certainly do not know the answer. Maybe the lawyer types can address it. Suppose McKool et al did take this on a partial contingency at the rates described by pvnotes. They certainly have access to the financial numbers for PRKR. Can they take the case, knowing that there is insufficient money to fund the case at these levels, and then simply withdraw if PRKR can no longer pay due to running out of money? Is there any element of responsibility when accepting a case to continue on even if the client runs out of money if you knew ahead of time what the probably costs would be? Just wondering?

    • aside from the defunct, disgraced Jersey bucket-shop former hedge fund (now barred by regulators, along with its principal, for life), is there anyone else (but you) driving the so-called fraud suit, Farmwald? No credible plaintiffs jumping on board, no class action?

      And your estimate on the partial contingency fees is way off. You are low-balling the motion work so far, along with the circuitview report, which is done. The relative cost of depos and experts is more, of course, but not that much more and is not going to kick the cost up anywhere near what you are trying to frighten long shareholders into believing in or to re-energize the shorts, now with your RamScam bag-holders fading fast, and your margin clerk calling on the hour ...

      And your whole theme of Jeff Parker having so much to fear from a depo and that it will impact the Qualcomm case is nonsense too - either the bucketshop case - which is getting zero traction - collapses or the Qualcomm trial will be long over before anything about it is res judicata ... but as an experienced litigation consumer, you surely know that, right?

    • I don't see what your goal is by always presenting negative data. Did you lose a pile of $ when PRKR fell from its all-time highs???

      As it stands, you can make ~2.25/share if it goes to 0 by shorting at a very high cost to borrow...are you saying there are no better investments out there?

      Seems to me like you waste a lot of time on here bashing...just wondering what your end game is.

    • The board is so quiet...time to relive some of a yesteryear PRKR conference call:

      Robert: “I've just got one other question and I'd really like to see you answer this, I don't know if you're aware but there is a bear story out there.

      And there's been several comments made of why your technology just isn't what you claim it is. I guess they're hanging their hat on the fact that it's been several years now and you've never gotten a contract and that really is the bottom line and I think if shareholders saw a contract that would be a very, very happy day.

      And I just would like you to comment somewhat on the bear story out there about not getting the contract and your technology just not being able to do what you claim it does.”

      Jeff Parker: “You know, Bob, I'm definitely not going to go into these nutty bearish stories. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to let our technology and the orders we're going to get speak for themselves.”

      Robert: “OK, thank you”.

      Jeff: “Thank you. You bet”.

      Now June 2012...still one of my favorite comments...as the orders continue to "speak for themselves".

      • 2 Replies to BJingles
      • I am rather new to this Board. Honest question. If this stock is such a piece of garbage, and has been for the last 20 years, why are you all still hanging around posting on this Board? I don't get it.

        As an interested investor, I understand all the arguments about the past 20 years- lots of promise, no orders, no revenues, etc. It still leaves the question- why did McKool Smith take the patent case on a contingency? They are no fools, and by the end of the day will probably have invested maybe $10 million of their own money (In attorneys's fees and overhead costs that they are not getting paid for unless they win) Is it possible that JP is a fraud, the company a POS, but the patent case has real value?

      • The transcripts from 20 years ago read the same way. Different time, another product; same junk. Over and over and over...

    • View More Messages
 
PRKR
1.210.00(0.00%)9:56 AMEDT

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.