When I made the point that McKool's spectacularly-unsuccessful defence of the Eolas case resulted in the jury ruling those patents as invalid, DESPITE the patents having previously survived three re-examinations by the Patent Office, you explained that McKool's failure there was not relevant to the current case because -
They have really powerful aspects of the Parker case that help them prosecute THIS case to their advantage.
Why don't you simply point us to a few of those powerful aspects you've identified which convinced you that McKool is certain to succeed this time?
Please offer us something apart from the Markman ruling. It's been pointed out to you several times now that while the wider scope of the patents makes a verdict of infringement more likely, it also makes a verdict of invalidity more likely - as indeed was the outcome in the Eolas case.
Have you ever wondered why you're always (I mean always) the question asker? You raise the Eolas case...why? Did anyone on this board say McKool was 100% perfect and won every case? I didn't. Why didn't you choose to post a past victory of McKool's? Oh, that's right. You're a short. You doh't want to post anything that is positive for PRKR.
It's the white paper Fud, and the past offer. So many aspects of this case that give us Longs confidence. But YOU were asked many questions - most importantly a recent one about your short status and you don't answer those questions? Why Fud?
"If you had no stake, then one would assume some neutrality. But that's not the case. You're not after the truth. You're after anything negative for PRKR. That's called an agenda."
- my agenda is to expose the activities of scummy crooks like yourself who have been monopolizing this forum for the agenda of dressing up a 5% (at most) chance of success as a 95% chance of success.
If you ask me or any of the other critics to explain our stance, we simply point to the established facts. Posters such as yourself and Overbrook can't do the same, so you resort to LYING - as you did when you told us your confidence in the outcome was based upon what you took away from the "white paper" you allegedly read.
"Some of the longs on this board will admit that PRKR's business track record has not been positive. That's honest However, when we turn to the patent infringement case, it is very positive. That's a heck of a lot more balanced than any short I hear."
- it makes me laugh when you claim your opinion is to any degree "balanced".
The skeptics here back up their opinions every time with reasoned arguments. They can point to hard facts which support their claims. They tell it as it is, that the prior art is such that ParkerVision has virtually no chance of coming out of this law suit with anything. Even if the jury doesn't understand the issues, the appeal court judges most certainly will.
You continue to refer to the Markman rulings as some sort of major victory - but I've yet to see you acknowledge the fact that while the rulings in favour of ParkerVision increased the chance of a verdict of infringement, to the same degree those same rulings increased the chance of a verdict that the patents are invalid.
Why don't you back up your boast by listing developments in this law suit which an unbiased observer is likely to perceive as being "very positive"?
I have no financial interest in PRKR. Anybody curious as to my motive for posing on this board needs only to look at my id. And my posting history shows that I didn't create that id just for PRKR.
1. As to the reasons you've advanced for your confidence in the outcome, it's quite clear from the sequence of events I've set out in another post that the offer was provisional - subject to Qualcomm being able to verify the performance claimed by ParkerVision.
It's also quite clear that Qualcomm was unable to verify those performance claims.
Do you dispute this? If so, kindly point us to evidence which suggests otherwise.
2. As to the white paper, kindly tell us briefly what you read there which convinced you that Qualcomm has been using an idea discovered by ParkerVision.
3. Is there any other evidence you can point us to which suggests ParkerVision has any hope of winning this case?