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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Feb 21, 2013 8:44 PM Flag

    $37.50 Per Share

    People shorting this stock don't understand that any valuation right now is not a typical Wall Street valuation, but a lawsuit valuation. We are not talking about what might happen in an arms-length transaction, but rather what a jury might do. That's why standard valuation models go out the window.
    Nobody knows what discovery on damages Cawley got from Apple under their subpoena - or what the numbers are from Qcom. If there is a $1 billion verdict - it will get trebled for intentional infringement - which is about $37.50 per share gross before deductions - and does not calculate reasonable (read "extortionate" ) royalties going forward.
    I think Qualcomm took McKool Smith way too lightly up to now - and it just got smacked in the mouth with a 2x4. My friend who recommended this stock to me last March has been absolutely right on every single issue that has arisen - and he said this thing could hit $50/share. Sounds crazy - right? Just not so crazy as a while ago.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Much like you OB - This whole sequence has followed what I was told would happen. Including the Markman that was just issued. People are trying to make comparisons to VRNG's positive Markman against GOOG but then the awards were very low from what people were expecting. Okay. But VRNG is not PRKR. Maybe a similar situation (Davey wins over Goliath) but PRKR's case is much stronger and our PRKR's Claims Construction is better. So, your figures could well play out Overbrook

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Over, if you are going to continue to use the meaningless "gross" number at least get it right, it is not $37.50 it is $36.32 per share

    • Overbrook - you paint a very rosy picture, but aren't damages usually a consequence of willful infringement?

      If so, don't you think the following unresolved issue might be of interest to your readers? It seems to me that the last bit could turn out to be an extremely sharp pin in the path of your bubble -

      From Docment 169 - Qualcomm's still-pending motion to dismiss ParkerVision's allegations of Indirect Infringement -

      "When this Court previously dismissed the indirect infringement claims in ParkerVision's First Amended Complaint, it provided ParkerVision with detailed guidance regarding the appropriate standards for pleading allegations of indirect infringement and granted ParkerVision leave to amend its claims to meet those standards. ParkerVision failed to follow this Court's guidance. Instead, ParkerVision again pleaded claims consisting solely of conclusory recitations of the elements of induced and contributory infringement, without any factual allegations to support a plausible inference that Qualcomm has indirectly infringed any claim of any of the patents-in-suit."

      "ParkerVision has had enough chances to plead its indirect infringement claims properly, and the Court should dismiss them with prejudice. Despite having clear guidance from the Court on how to amend its complaint, and despite having litigated this case now for well over a year, ParkerVision has not provided any factual support for its indirect infringement claims. ParkerVision has already amended its complaint three times, the February 13, 2012 deadline to amend pleadings has long past and the end of discovery is approaching."

      "ParkerVision alleges no fact (not even a speculative one) to support a plausible inference that Qualcomm was aware of each of the Patents-in-Suit prior to the July 20, 2011 filing of the original complaint."

      • 3 Replies to fudfighter4
      • Fud - You're kidding me - right? I mean, you are not really making that argument with a straight face, are you? Are you forgetting that little number back around 1998-1999 when Parkervision and Qualcomm negotiated for a licensing agreement - where PV disclosed to Qualcomm its confidential trade secrets - where the deal was never made(probably because Q wanted an exclusive that PV was not willing to give) - and where later Qualcomm just stole the technology and has been using it to date to design and sell chipsets- including to people like Apple and Samsung and others?
        That's what one might call evidence of intentional infringement warranting treble damages. That is precisely what makes this case different from any other patent infringement case I have ever heard of. Where else have you seen a patent holder disclose trade secrets as part of negotiations - the negotiations lead nowhere - and the other party has been found to have infringed on the patents? That is why a jury will get absolutely punitive with Qualcomm.

        I have been saying all along that Cawley has painted a huge bullseye on Q and he is loaded for bear. These Texans are not guys to take lightly.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • There's a freight train heading towards the shorts, and he's publishing a schematic of the caboose. Ah, Fud, you are smart enough to know it' s the engine that actually kills you? Right?

        Sentiment: Buy

      • If anybody reads your rants and has any doubts about PV, all they have to do and look at any of your past distortions of the truth. I don’t know if you work for QUALCOMM or a hedge fund, but you are by now desperate to cut your losses and will continue to run your mouth spewing your lies at any cost. All your rhetoric is aimed at limiting your liability, period.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

0.1788+0.0108(+6.43%)Nov 27 12:58 PMEST