Bjingles. You never answered my 2nd question. and that just doesn't surprise me. But hey, you've put some other fish in the oven and boy do they stink:
You said: "3) Recognize that patent litigation is complicated and risky on a good day, and the number of awards in excess of $200M is extremely extremely small, and chances of success are greater than 0% but certainly much less than 100%." 4) Recognize that, given the above, an "investment" in PRKR is extremely risky, that it's not clear if there is upside in the stock even if they "win" the lawsuit."
Oh. C'mon. It's not clear there is an upside? Even if the stock wins the lawsuit? Those statements clearly show you have an agenda for citing the negative. There has to be a profit motive on your part to take such an obviously negative view - actually, no, the correct word would be "absurdly" negative view.
"Extremely risky?" Who are you trying to fool? You just lost all credence on that rhubarb. Downside with a win in the patent litigation? Double or triple the pps now. Upside? Could be a lot more than 3x current price now. Are you the only one that doesn't know this?
Not surenwhy you think I am Bjingles. I think there is upside, i just put such a low probability on it I practically ignore it. Much like a lottery ticket - pretty sure you are wasting your money but "someone's gotta win right?". All JMHO.
"There has to be a profit motive on your part".
I told you. I am short PRKR. I stated it up front. But I am short because I'm negative - I'm not negative because I'm short - see the difference there?
And to deny that a $200M zero revenue, zero customer, zero design win, zero commercial traction huge cash burn company whose only hope at justifying any market cap at all hinges on a risky lawsuit against a gorilla is just plain silly. What do you call a meaningful chance at losing 100% of your money if not "Extremely risky"? How about "Outrageously overvalued and speculative"?
They are outraged by pv's technological claims, but won't address that Qualcomm not only uses what pv claimed, but in fact obtained their own patents on the same principles without citing pv. Only after this is demonstrated to the jury will exhibit o become relevant. At that point ,who will pay any mind to a Qualcomm denial absent a document contradicting or denying the pv summary of their position?