Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 8:47 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter4 fudfighter4 Mar 24, 2013 9:45 AM Flag

    Timetable of relevant events 1998 - 1999

    From Document 206, Annex 2 -

    "Qualcomm first tested a ParkerVision circuit board in September 1998. The primary Qualcomm individuals involved in that testing were Saed Younis and Steve Ciccarelli, who performed noise figure and IIP3 measurements. (QCPV001547600.)

    Qualcomm engineers found the results of these tests unsatisfactory and Steve Ciccarelli concluded that "this chip is not usable as it currently is for our phones". (Id.) Further results from this testing, including a confirmation that ParkerVision's own test results were incorrect, are documented in QCPV001390634.

    Qualcomm also tested chips provided by ParkerVision in early 1999.

    On January 14, 1999 Saed Younis requested that David Sorrells provide Qualcomm with a circuit board and schematic so that Qualcomm engineers could independently confirm the testing that ParkerVision claimed it had already performed. (QCPV001549441-42.)

    On February 2nd, Jeff Parker and David Sorrells brought two test boards to Qualcomm's offices in San Diego (QCPV001389700) and allowed Qualcomm to test these boards for two weeks (QCPV001549446). Saed Younis, Steve Ciccarelli, and Rick Staszewski performed the initial tests; the procedure and results are summarized in QCPV001623275-76. A full description of test procedures and results are contained in QCPV001547653-59 (attachment to email QCPV001547652, dated February 26, 1999).

    On March 23, 1999, Saed Younis wrote a memo evaluating ParkerVision's D2D technology and concluded that it "offers little novelty, if any, to the known problems of zero-IF", and that upon examining ParkerVision's presentation, Younis was "unable to find any applicable mathematical proof or theoretical derivation towards the benefits of the aperture approach " described by ParkerVision. (QCPV005518497-502, attachment to email QCPV005518496, dated March 27, 1999.)"

    continued ...

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • And your point is ? The offer was never made? The offer wasn't a real offer? There was no factual basis for the $678 million figuee that has been thrown around?

      Moreover, how do you factor in Jeff's statement that the infringement didn't occur until 2007 - or maybe a little earlier? So- discussions about what happened in 1999 are certainly not the whole story?

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 3 Replies to overbrook10
      • For the second time -

        THE OFFER - Document 172 refers to an "excerpt of the June 10, 1999 proposed term sheet".

        (Document 206 continued)

        In late June 1999, Qualcomm engineers including Charles Wheatley and Bruce Judson became involved in testing the evaluation boards provided to Qualcomm by ParkerVision and worked to determine the speed, insertion loss and edge feedthrough characteristics, among other things. (QCPV001389933-35.) Bruce Judson's test equipment included ... (QCPV001390441.)

        Such testing began in early September 1999. (QCPV001414647.)

        In October, Qualcomm engineer Rob Gilmore concluded that ParkerVision's D2D technology was "not worth it" for transmit and would not be a benefit on the receive side. (QCPV001391422-25 at QCPV001391422.)

        On October 18th, Prashant Kantak informed Jeff Parker that Qualcomm would continue its evaluation of ParkerVision's technology only "when (ParkerVision) achieve(s) some concrete milestones on the CDMA receiver development front". (QCPV001413158.)

      • Lost for words Overbrook?

        Are ANY on the Longs here prepared to help us all out by pointing to something in the court documents which offers hard evidence that Qualcomm has been using a novel element of ParkerVision's technology?

      • A royalty structure was proposed on the basis of ParkerVision's performance measurements for D2D, subject to said measurements being verifiable by Qualcomm. When Qualcomm tested the evaluation boards supplied by ParkerVision it was unable to verify the ParkerVision claims.

        The point you insist upon overlooking is that the royalty structure would only have been relevant had Qualcomm used D2D. Sorrells, the lead inventor, described D2D during the Tutorial hearing - and the allegedly-infringing Qualcomm chips clearly do not incorporate D2D -

        [... and that upon examining ParkerVision's presentation, Younis was "unable to find any applicable mathematical proof or theoretical derivation towards the benefits of the aperture approach " described by ParkerVision.]

        ["The energy is taken from the carrier signal, modulated carrier signal, in an amount to distort the carrier signal and moved into storage. This is absolutely clear. This goes to the heart of the matter in this case, Your Honor, because Qualcomm does not do this."]

        [Qualcomm states that its accused products "use continuous mixing technology to downconvert from the modulated RF carrier frequency to the baseband frequency in one stage, which is an evolution of the well-known and long-standing heterodyne prior art designs that perform continuous mixing and capture information throughout the entire cycle of an RF signal."]

    • Continuation ...

      THE PRIOR ART NOTICE - Document 91 refers to a meeting on March 17, 1999 involving David Sorrells "to discuss certain aspects of the direct conversion technology that ParkerVision claimed to have invented" - and to the subsequent receipt by Sorrells from Qualcomm on or around March 26, 1999 of a copy of a 1997 article by Parssinen and others.

      (Document 206 continued)

      Qualcomm engineers performed additional testing over the next few months. Steve Ciccarelli took notes on testing performed in March in a lab notebook. (QCPV005549923-39.) The results of this testing, including Qualcomm's concerns about the shortcomings of D2D, are recorded in QCPV001564760-62 (attachment to email QCPV001564759, dated June 21, 1999).

      THE OFFER - Document 172 refers to an "excerpt of the June 10, 1999 proposed term sheet".

      (Document 206 continued)

      In late June 1999, Qualcomm engineers including Charles Wheatley and Bruce Judson became involved in testing the evaluation boards provided to Qualcomm by ParkerVision and worked to determine the speed, insertion loss and edge feedthrough characteristics, among other things. (QCPV001389933-35.) Bruce Judson's test equipment included ... (QCPV001390441.)

      Such testing began in early September 1999. (QCPV001414647.)

      In October, Qualcomm engineer Rob Gilmore concluded that ParkerVision's D2D technology was "not worth it" for transmit and would not be a benefit on the receive side. (QCPV001391422-25 at QCPV001391422.)

      On October 18th, Prashant Kantak informed Jeff Parker that Qualcomm would continue its evaluation of ParkerVision's technology only "when (ParkerVision) achieve(s) some concrete milestones on the CDMA receiver development front". (QCPV001413158.)

      • 1 Reply to fudfighter4
      • Just a reminder to the pumpers here -

        "THE PRIOR ART NOTICE - Document 91 refers to a meeting on March 17, 1999 involving David Sorrells "to discuss certain aspects of the direct conversion technology that ParkerVision claimed to have invented" - and to the subsequent receipt by Sorrells from Qualcomm on or around March 26, 1999 of a copy of a 1997 article by Parssinen and others."

        Whether or not Parssinen was relevant is irrelevant. What interests me most here is the apparent ABSENCE of a response by ParkerVision.

        Why didn't they simply reply along the lines of -

        "It's THIS element of our architecture which makes it patentable".

 
PRKR
1.25-0.03(-2.34%)Sep 19 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.