Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 8:40 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 50 mins.

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • nubuzzman nubuzzman Sep 20, 2011 10:05 AM Flag

    QCOM response to PRKR Complaint

    After studying QCOMs response the following is apparent:
    1) They boiler-plate the denial of infringement and make no effort to distiguish their technology from PRKR;
    2)They take issue with the validity and legality of the PRKR patents although the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, and the US Patent office have recently indicated otherwise and rated PRKRs patents in the top 50 of all companies: and 3)they rely upon a conflict of interests to somehow validate their use of PRKRs technology.
    There is an old legal axiom: if the law is against you, and the facts are against you, throw as much mud against the wall and maybe some will stick...........that shouldn't work in this forum.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • FakeDr.F is hyperbolic, but basically correct. There is no analogy that can be drawn between the Samsung/Apple patent war - part of a strategic battle for the smartphone marketplace - and the PRKR suit against qcom.

    • I love how these prkr pumpers post totally irrelevant news articles and try to compare the current situation with Parkervision to the article.

      The main problem with this reference GiantMoonStepGuy is that Samsung and Apple are real companies that produce real hardware that is actually tangible. Hardware that actually is used, and allowed to be tested by people. PRKR only produces stock.

      The situations are totally different: two real companies suing each other vs PRKR suing QCOM to keep from being de-listed.

    • This excerpt from a Reuters article about Apple vs. Samsung over IP epitomizes what I think will play out in PRKR vs. QCOM:

      >>>"....Samsung and Apple are suing each other in 9 countries over 20 cases. Apple first fired salvo in April by suing Samsung in a California court, saying the Galaxy lineup devices infringed on its mobile technology patents and design.

      Samsung shot back with claims of its own.

      Some analysts said Samsung's aggressive stance could help it gain some support from consumers.

      "These legal battles are raising perception among consumers that Samsung is the only one capable of competing against Apple," said Choi Do-youn, an analyst at LIG Investment & Securities.

      Despite the global court cases, both companies could end up settling the cases, HSBC said in a note.

      "The most likely scenario is an out-of-court settlement, after a long-drawn IP battle... As in the case of the Nokia-Apple dispute, this issue too is likely to be settled out of the court, after a long drawn legal dispute," said HSBC analyst Daniel Kim."<<<

      Full article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/26/us-samsung-legal-idUSTRE78P09820110926

    • 98% of patent cases never reach trial - either they are disposed of on summary judgment or they settle before trial. you are correct that one of those two is likely to occur here. and neither will happen for quite a while.

      While this litigation discussion is interesting, it is hiding the larger issue. Rather than continue this thread, I'll start a new one to see what people think.

    • Thanks to all the posters, pro and con, for their thoughtful analysis of SWOT regarding this litigation spiced with a little humor on the side. Most entertaining.

      As a "longggggg" time PRKR long, no doubt, I am looking for PRKR to prevail. In the mean time, it looks like a high stakes chess game and it will be captivating to watch. As stated before and with all due respect to legal issues, I am betting the almighty dollar will drive this resolution to an out-of-court settlement long before trial. Maybe our legal eagles here could tell us how often these cases go all the way to the wire without settlements out of court.

      Thanks again for thousands of dollars worth of free legal advice! :) Keep those posts coming. Lots of fans on the sidelines.

    • Showing them some bogus technology is not, and never has been (for these purposes), the issue. But if you run over there and show them a patent that relates to their business your sister the attorney might have a shot at selling them an opinion letter to inoculate themselves from a claim of willfulness. If not from her, they will get it from somewhere.

      Is this a great cottage industry for patent lawyers? Absolutely. In fact, it gets better - until very recently a company's *failure* to obtain an opinion of counsel (had to be outside counsel - inside counsel wasn't enough) was itself considered evidence of willfulness.

      So qcom had every incentive to get an opinion on a patent put before them.

    • pay for an opinion on technology they rejected as unworkable makes sense? Well, maybe i'll run over there tomorrow and show them some bogus technology and have my sister the attorney follow up to sell them an opinion on said bogus technology. In fact we could do that with any company according to you, right? Great racket, thanks!

      <To believe that, you would have to believe that they first concluded 551 didn't work, as per their own 2002 patent application that BJ found, but bought an opinion on it anyway that says it's invalid - sounds like bs, counselor.>


      Actually makes perfect sense when you put it that way. If that's what they concluded uponnreview then they would have obtained a formal opinion verifying their belief and gone on their merry way. It's a cheap - and the only available - insurance policy against a later claim of willfullness. for them to be in notice (if they were in fact on notice) and not obtained such a letter would be extremely foolish.

    • <To believe that, you would have to believe that they first concluded 551 didn't work, as per their own 2002 patent application that BJ found, but bought an opinion on it anyway that says it's invalid - sounds like bs, counselor.>


      Actually makes perfect sense when you put it that way. If that's what they concluded uponnreview then they would have obtained a formal opinion verifying their belief and gone on their merry way. It's a cheap - and the only available - insurance policy against a later claim of willfullness. for them to be in notice (if they were in fact on notice) and not obtained such a letter would be extremely foolish.

    • Oops, a typo...'552 was meant to be '551. Must have had my mental auto-incremented engaged.

    • Rounder, are you indicating that you believe the issues you quoted from the qualcomm patent in your 19 Sep, 1:30pm post are a reference to the prkr '552 patent?

    • View More Messages
 
PRKR
4.16-0.17(-3.93%)Apr 15 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.
Yahoo! Inc.
NasdaqGSTue, Apr 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
SodaStream International Ltd.
NasdaqGSTue, Apr 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT