"Of course shorts believe there's nothing to the patent infringement. We longs believe the opposite. I did my dd, I don't knowingly throw money away. I'm very (very) sure that Q stole this technology and our day is coming."
- from the number of times now you've mentioned your "dd" I'm guessing you hope to gain a personal financial advantage at the expense of others who use this forum by promoting the impression that there is more reason to believe Parkervision will be successful than is actually the case.
I had a quiet chuckle the other day when I read the following from you -
"Exhibit O - as in defective "O" ring for the shorts. Wow....what a revelation. My dd was spot on. I was told: "Go long, stay long, don't worry about the short stuff on the board...just stay long" Exhibit O tells me why now."
That post told me much about how thorough was your "dd".
So the idea that QCOM offered a royalty structure projected to earn PRKR a cumulative $636-$678 million in 1999 present value was a revelation to you?
Even I already knew from my few visits to this board of the claim that QCOM proposed a royalty structure. I suspect there can be very few investors with positions in PRKR who are unaware of that claim.
And somebody telling you to "Go long, stay long, don't worry about the short stuff on the board...just stay long" is right up there in terms of importance to you compared to your "dd"?
You seem to be hoping to promote the idea that the investors who hold the PRKR short position are misguided because they have not performed any real due diligence whereas yours has been thorough.
I'm inclined to believe that the exact opposite is far more likely to be the true position. You're world class at hinting you have a comprehensive grasp of this issue, but you never seem to produce the goods. Your reaction to Bonkthegrup's detailed dissection of your "Who speaks for the market" post provides a good example of how much you actually do know about this issue.
Btw - the Short position in PRKR is still increasing. The latest position, reported for the September 14 settlement date, was 15,562,308 shares. At least we can agree that their due diligence is likely to have been different to yours.
You said, "You seem to be hoping to promote the idea that the investors who hold the PRKR short position are misguided because they have not performed any real due diligence whereas yours has been thorough." Sorry Fud, but those are your words, not mine.
Yet both can't be right, now can we? This pps is either going way up at the conclusion of the trial or way down because it doesn't even come to trial or the outcome of the trial is not positive for PRKR. My money is on this PI going to trial and the outcome of that trial to be positive for PRKR. Is that too simple for you Fud? Or do you feel better if this idea is portrayed in a more complex fashion? Would you like me better if I spewed reams of "what if's"? Yea, yea.
I'll get right on that.
"Be here now" Fud. I'm 150% up from my initial investment with PRKR. Try to spin that away. Watch that disappear says the shorts. Watch that grow says the longs. Yea, yea.