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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • roundermatt roundermatt Mar 24, 2013 5:57 PM Flag

    Your problems with Parssinen/Younis are many, Fud ...

    first, the Parssinen objection was 3/17/99 and the offer/LOI was in-play subsequently (we know in June); another problem is it has been abandon, reportedly based on an e-mail; the last problem is, like everything you write, you presume, Sorrells, Sterne, McKool, Proncel, Rivet, etc., are all idiots, who didn't consider exactly what you are tryihg to manipulate the stock price with;

    Also, I've seen no evidence that you are right, or even that you might be ... have you ever considered the whole objection thing is going to blow-up in your faces:

    When Cawley asks QC's expert why, if PV's invention was made obvious by prior art, did QC make an offer/LOI AFTER all the skepticism?

    The question is impossible for QC to answer. Younis, et. al. are well-beyond "skilled in the art"; yet they considered Parssinen and so by implication at least everything PV cited in the wrapper, THEN they made an offer/LOI ...

    so the question for QC's expert is how could prior art have made this obvious if these folks looked at everything and decided to make an offer/LOI for the "aperture approach" - as THEY called it?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
0.22Sep 1 3:59 PMEDT