Parkervision Inc. Message Board
-
The Shorting never ends at PRKR
With the Patent Infringement case coming, all other issues seem to small compared to the money to be made in 2013 with the trial slated to begin in June. Unless, of course, your shorting this stock. That would be a different story.
Sentiment: Buy
-
The case for buying this stock:
1. Q offered PV $700 million for a licensing deal for PV's technology in 1999, after PV disclosed its technology to Q.
2. McKool Smith, one of the best in the country, agreed to take this patent infringement case on a partial contingency after doing its own due diligence.
3. World-class expert Princeton Professor Pruncal states in his expert report that PV devised an "entirely new way" of down-converting radio signals.
4. Kevin Rivette of 3LP states that PV's technology makes possible today's latest generation of smartphones, tablets, etc.
5. After evaluation by trial counsel and in-house counsel, Q lists the PV lawsuit in ints November 6, 2012 10-K as one of 4 pending lawsuits where there is a "reasonable possibility" of a "substantial verdict" against Q.
PV has been successful in getting some very impressive people behind it . Every development in this case confirms my evaluation that 1) this lawsuit is only the first of many and 2) with a halfway decent Markman ruling, Q can't risk taking this case to trial. Easily $10=$20 per share.Sentiment: Strong Buy
- 2 Replies to overbrook10
-
"1. Q offered PV $700 million for a licensing deal for PV's technology in 1999, after PV disclosed its technology to Q."
What's more likely, that no such bona fide "offer" was made, or that Parkvision turned it down and chose instead to go for another 13 years of no revenue and no customers?
"2. McKool Smith, one of the best in the country, agreed to take this patent infringement case on a partial contingency after doing its own due diligence."
Given the company is spending millions of dollars in legal fees, how much contingency do you think there is? From the 10-Q:
"Although our litigation team is working on a partial contingency basis, we expect to incur significant costs for legal and expert fees related to this litigation"
"3. World-class expert Princeton Professor Pruncal states in his expert report that PV devised an "entirely new way" of down-converting radio signals."
IMHO relying on an expert paid by the plaintiff should be taken with a whopping grain of salt.
"4. Kevin Rivette of 3LP states that PV's technology makes possible today's latest generation of smartphones, tablets, etc."
You mean the company that PV just hired for cash is making posive comments about PV's "technology"? Shocking. Simply shocking how that works.
"5. After evaluation by trial counsel and in-house counsel, Q lists the PV lawsuit in ints November 6, 2012 10-K as one of 4 pending lawsuits where there is a "reasonable possibility" of a "substantial verdict" against Q."
You forgot to mention this from the QCOM 10-K:
"The Company has not recorded any accrual at September 30, 2012 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on its belief that losses, while possible, are not probable."
And their auditors (PWC) obviously agree:
"In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial statements listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of QUALCOMM Incorporated and its subsidiaries at September 30, 2012"
"PV has been successful in getting some very impressive people behind it"
Paying services providers millions of dollars isn't exactly a challenging way to get them "behind you".
"Easily $10=$20 per share."
Sure.....Sentiment: Strong Sell
-
Over--question
You refer to a professor Pruncal from Princeton is it possible you have misspelled his name and that it is really Paul Prucnal of Princeton ?
-