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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • nubuzzman nubuzzman Sep 24, 2012 4:54 PM Flag

    3 questions

    Exhibit O answers the following:
    1, Did QCOM see it?
    2. Did QCOM test it and know the tech worked?
    3. Did QCOM want it?

    P,S. Whomever earlier said that Exhibit O was inadmissable was not a lawyer.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are correct. BTW, PV's whole case can be summarized in Docket 177, Exhibit K at p. 6-7- Answer to Interrogatory No.1. Also, see Exhibit F at page 21 on the same Docket, where Q admits that its empoyees were shown PV's designs, etc. during the negotiations.

      Q's case is not based on non-infringement - it's based on invalidity. They lose on invalidity- they are dead.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Simply read Cawleys pleading filed Friday and the answer to all "3 questions" are contained therein. Although the Judge knows this he has been taking a "crash course" on technology, has to read and comprehend volumes of documents and exhibits that have been filed, research the cited cases, and handle a case call of probably 200 other cases. He must be overwhelmen at this point and I personally do not expect, and do not want, a Markman ruling until he is fully iinformed. I expext this will take many more weeks. Nevertheless, I think this is a positive for the longs so we get rulings that fit those 3 FACTS the shorts dread and spin their spam that "Dr. F taught them; the technology is bogus", those 3 facts prove otherwise. By the way, some time ago I posted that this case was David v. Goliath; is Forbes guilty of plagarism? (just kidding). WE WILL PREVAIL.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • The multitude of shorts that are posting on this board are in a state of denial. Facts are what wins law suits, and the system works. Because Judge Dalton has been innundated with documents precipitated by QCOMs refusal to get to the core issues, we have no definitive rulings on the ultimate issues.Given time, he will rule and he will rely upon the facts.. When he does the the facts will be known, and QCOM will be toast.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • "there never was an offer", so says the innumerable shorts (15 million of them). Exhibit O was a self serving document prepared by JP in his office one night. The problem is; why did QCOM agree to its production? Why is the left column, the terms QCOM didnt offer, redacted? Why is QCOM fighting so diligently to keep Exhibit O redacted? Not a very compelling defense to their stealing the technology.

    • That was skibum, the self-proclaimed "patent attorney" who doesn't know that Qualcomm's business records are admissible

      )P,S. Whomever earlier said that Exhibit O was inadmissable was not a lawyer.

      • 1 Reply to roundermatt
      • What a maroon. I said that the document wasn't admissible *to prove that there was an offer by QCOM.* The document is nothing more than PRKR's summary view of the negotiations. There's a little thing called the hearsay rule that prevents this from being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted since it is PRKR reporting what it heard qcom say (hence the name of the rule).

        You want to offer this to prove the document was in qcom's files? Go ahead. You want to use it prove that anything in that document accurately sets out the truth? Not a chance.

        Understand? Or should I write it in crayon for you?

    • What I can say with certainty is that it's very difficult to draw much meaningful information, let alone conclusions from "Exhibit O". IMHO all it really seems to indicate is that some discussions took place. Without the context and facts, testimony, evidence, etc. who knows?

      For example, perhaps PRKR went to QCOM and represented X, Y, and Z about "the technology". Perhaps QCOM came back and said "that's great, let's have a look". Then PRKR says: "we don't want to let you see it until we've worked out the commercial terms" . Or maybe QCOM didn't want to waste time evaluating it unless it knew what the price was. Etc etc.

      I'm not stating this is what happened, or likely happened, only there are a huge number of scenarios that could explain something like "Exhibit O".

      IMHO anyone making conclusions based on Exhibit O is being naive or disingenuous.

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

0.34-0.12(-26.25%)Jul 31 4:00 PMEDT