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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • skibummolinaro skibummolinaro Nov 7, 2012 5:57 PM Flag

    Big Win for Doug Cawley/McCool Smith on behalf of VHC v. AAPL

    C'mon Todd, show a fellow long some love! Like you, I'm now cheering for PRKR success!

    But I can't just let idiotic statements like yours go by, no matter how much it is against my economic interests. You completely miss two points: one big, one small.

    The small point: no one has ever said that ignoring another company's patents has a bearing on infringement, that goes to the issue of whether any infringement is willful. As I said a while back, it is standard practice for companies to avoid looking at the patents held by others so as to avoid being found to be willfully infringing. AFAIK Apple wasn't held to willfully infringe in this case (though I admit that I haven't looked too deeply - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

    The big point: does it escape your notice that VirnetX successfully proved that the two richest tech companies in the world - Apple and Microsoft - infringed several patents in some core functionality in their biggest selling products (which products sell for hundreds of dollars each), and came away with a total of $570M? And that assumes the Apple verdict stands up on appeal. Now, tell me again how the PRKR case against QCOM will be worth billions? How do you justify the stock price?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Look at the just-filed 10K- that will show you how this stock price should be at least $10.00 per share if not more.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • I'll take 570mil plus the injunctions (which you are ignoring), plus maybe treble and fees and interest (which is huge), and i don't see that this is any less valuable of a product, there is evidence of an offer in qualcomm's files, produced in this litigation, whether you believe it or not, and witnesses will testify about it, and it will be admissible to reinforce the plaintiff's testimony, and you are talking out of both sides of your mouth (as usual) about the not looking at patents, which in this case would be after they were taught and knew about the existence of patents and likelihood of additional patents, and you are not a lawyer and you are not long, either

    • oh, and if you think 570 mil. is peanuts, extrapolate this (and look at the chart):

      VHC y2k high ~$35; subsequent low 4 CENTS; recent high 40 DOLLARS

      • 1 Reply to roundermatt
      • You're absolutely right Todd. If VirnetX can recover $500M from Apple and MSFT (combined annual revenues: over $200B) just think what PRKR can recover from Qualcomm (annual revenue: 18B)! The fact that it takes QCOM 10 years to sell what Apple and MSFT sell in a single year is irrelevant to the analysis, right?

        Extrapolate that.

        As for the injunction the Ebay case from the Supreme Court and get back to me. Subsequent courts have gone even further in raising the bar on getting an injunction. Bottom line: it's next to impossible unless the parties are direct competitors, and even then it's difficult.

        re willfulness: I'll repeat what I said years ago when the topic first came up - it all depends on whether QCOM obtained competent advice of counsel before proceeding. If they knew of the patents and went blindly ahead they have a problem. If they consulted counsel who gave them reasonable (even if ultimately wrong) advice re noninfringement or invalidity they are clear.

3.02-0.01(-0.33%)Apr 29 3:59 PMEDT