Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 7:29 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • longprkr longprkr Dec 11, 2012 9:39 PM Flag

    Bjingles - smoke & mirrors

    Bjingles says, "Longs: Keep ignoring this stuff and see how it works out for you." Yea. Right. Let's see. If Q has published over 4K pages of prior art charts, then why would you expect this to go to trial Bjingles? Why not a summary judgement? Is it 100% PRKR? No. Does PRKR have a distinct edge? Of course. That's the ONLY reason I'm still here. And more deceptive smoke where you turn Qcomm's #$%$ off the judge as something that might hook the judge into an act or a statement that will play well with an appeal? Stretch that taffy. Shorts, you keep ignoring this stuff and we'll see how it works out for you too. I have no problem waiting for a jury trial verdict in 2014. As a long, I expected the process to take a while anyway. It'll be worth my wait.

    Sentiment: Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Longprkr writes: "If Q has published over 4K pages of prior art charts, then why would you expect this to go to trial Bjingles? Why not a summary judgement?" Good question. You’re probably right that PRKR will lose in summary judgment sooner. I was just being gracious to your long viewpoint.

      It will be entertaining as the longs lose their money to the stock sellers such as PRKR and the rest of the shorts. (I think PRKR has sold about five times as much as all the shorts combined).

      The funny part is that when JP’s attys publish about an "offer" you treat it as absolute truth. But when QCOM attys publish about "4675 pages of prior art" you label it as "If…" So you think QCOM made it up?

      Have you ever heard the descriptor “Blind in one eye and can’t see out the other”? I doubt you’ve seen it.

      Perhaps you should call in on the next conference call and ask Uncle Jeff about that "prior art stuff" and see what he says.

      I’m glad you have no problem "waiting for a trial verdict in 2014". Neither do I. I don’t have an investment here. I do enjoy watching the poorly informed announce how smart they are. Say, why don’t you buy some more?

      Reminds me of that insurance company study where they found that the average driver thinks he is a better than average driver.

      This is a great place to study the topic of "how not to invest". The smoke, mirrors and opinions are my own.

      • 3 Replies to bjingles
      • I think we are all having the wrong discsussion if we are speaking of "investing" in this company. I am a strong long (I truly believe this stock could hit close to $100, but that is another discussion), but I would never consider investing in this company - it is a dog and possibly worse. Anyone who invests on the word of Jeff Parker or the history of Parkervision should have their head examined.

        No - what I invested in is a lawsuit. And that investment is doing great. And Q agrees (see its latest 10-K.)

        I just got done reading the 100 page transcript of the tutorial for Judge Dalton (Dkt 146 I think). I was struck by how supremely prepared, confident and in control Cawley was in questioning Sorrels. He controlled the testimony - leading question followed by succinct answer - next. He had Sorrels explain the 3 ways of down-converting used in the '90's - how each worked - the strengths and weaknesses of each. Then, he had him explain how PV's designs worked - how they differed from prior art - what improvements were made from prior methods - what the advantages were - and then he sat down. I actually understood most of what was said. (For a non-adversarial proceeding, it was curiously adversarial).

        Hummel on the other hand - for Q- was like an unmade bed- a complete mess - I think he asked Dr. Fox 1 question during the tutorial and let Fox talk for about one half an hour without interruption. This is the lazy lawyer's way - just let the expert go on an extended unfocussed narrative. Fox was completely disorganized and almost impossible to understand. I think he made the mistake of trying to explain stuff that he didn't have to - it was like explaining the workings of an internal combustion engine by going into the chemical properties of gasoline, how it was extracted from the earth, refined, delivered, combustion points, etc. - interesting but beside the point.

        In reading the transcript, it struck me how this trial is going to go. Most of the science in this case is going to go right over the jury's head. However, Cawley is going to have his superstar Prucnal - a full professor at Princeton for the last 22 years - explain confidently how PV invented an entirely new way of down-converting, and he is going to explain how. For Q, its expert Fox is a former sound engineer who isn't even a full professor at U of Florida - and he is going to fumble all over the place. I believe Cawley is going to slice and dice Q into little pieces before this jury.

        Now, put all that together with the offer that Q made for $678 million dollars - add a dash of intentional infringement with treble damages - and Mr. Cawley may cook up a nice little verdict well into the billions.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • The fact that Q produced over 4,600 pages of what it refers to as "prior art" in discovery doesn't make it so. Maybe yes and maybe no. Just like when PV produced over 81,000 pages of documents in discovery. Who knows what's in it and what the relevance is?
        What I find more important is what is being said (or not said) in the courtroom. I am continually struck by the differences in the level of advocacy of McKool and Cravath Sawin & Moore in this case. McKoolI just outclasses and out-litigates Q. t would seem that if the prior art were so overwhelming - Q should be hitting PV (and the judge) over the head with it every chance it gets. However, except for one early filing, I have never heard Cravath specify one piece of prior art that supposedly hurts PV out of the box. In fact, I have not heard one piece of prior art at all.

        The same applies to Q's expert. The shorts keep crowing that PV's technology is a bunch of junk based on old prior art that every idiot in the world knew about. Old stuff wrapped up in a new box. Not only that, but it doesn't work. OK- I accept that for purposes of discussion. But if that is the case, how come Professor Fox does not say that? How come Cravath doesn't repeat that - beat that dead horse as often as I beat the supposed "dead horse" of a $678 million offer?

        Instead - Q makes bone-headed moves like suing Sterne, refusing to submit to depositions, refusing to answer Interrogatories 21-25, and makinga big deal of inequitable conduct. This just irks the judge, loses Q credibility and doesn't gain anything in the suiit. The judge threw out the Sterne claim with a Rule 11 warning, has basically said that Q loses on Interrogatories 21-25 and will probably lose on the remaining discovery motions on Monday. My bet is that, based on Theresense, Q loses on inequitable conduct.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • BJ - I think I liked you better when you were an acknowledged short (or put owner). You're working pretty hard with these monographs to be some sort of disinterested party.

        Anyway, you have distorted my words. I said there is no sign of any prior art not cited by PV in the patents. Your, 'I know something that you don't know' routine is getting kind of old, don't you think? If you have some art, post it. What do you care? You said you are not short or otherwise adverse to PV, right?

        Anyway, even with Egan's help, the judge seems to be having a difficult time with the claim terms, but we do know this - there won't be any Egans in the jury box, and the judge will instruct the jury that PV's patents are presumed valid and that, unless they are about 75% sure (clear and convincing) that the experts at the patent office incorrectly interpreted the prior art, then they can't find invalidity.

        As far as the 4,000 pages go, it's a lot like the Sterne accusations - transparently baseless. Just like with the inequitable cites, which QC claims invalidate as well, their just parsing up the claims, as though if you find one element in prior art that invalidates ... sorry buster, doesn't work that way

    • You will also have to wait for the Federal Circuit appeal, and then possibly the second trial if there is a remand because the D.Ct. messed up the claim construction. Just sayin ....

 
PRKR
1.24-0.02(-1.59%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.