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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter4 fudfighter4 Apr 17, 2013 3:25 PM Flag

    Overbrook - this is what I suspect has happened

    Here's the problem Overbrook. All of the hard evidence I've seen points to the following scenario -

    1. Back in 1998 ParkerVision approached Qualcomm with a suggestion that Qualcomm should use D2D - ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" technology. ParkerVision made certain performance claims, but insisted that Qualcomm propose an acceptable royalty structure before allowing Qualcomm to analyse the technology.

    2. Qualcomm proposed a royalty structure which was conditional upon being able to verify ParkerVision's performance claims.

    3. Qualcomm was unable to verify those performance claims, and saw no commercialisation potential in the ParkerVision technology.

    4. ParkerVision persuaded the Patent Office to issue patents which covered not only the "accumulated energy" architecture but also established impulse-sampling architectures which do not make use of accumulated energy.

    5. Qualcomm developed an evolution of the impulse-sampling approach.

    6. When ParkerVision's final attempt to persuade a third party to use the "accumulated energy" technology failed - an attempt to enforce its patents over Qualcomm's technology was perceived as the only realistic alternative to bankruptcy.

    7. The attempted monopolisation of this forum by posters professing to have the utmost confidence in the outcome of this law suit is nothing more than ParkerVision doing what ParkerVision has always done - talk up a 5% chance of success to make it look like a 95% chance of success.

    Call me an old cynic if you will - but PLEASE can somebody point us to the merest scrap of hard evidence which suggests I have this wrong?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Here's the problem Fud. All of the hard evidence I've seen points to the following scenario. This includes reading between the lines of various documents and making certain inferences

      1. Mr. Sorrels is really not an engineer by training, and so is not constrained by the blinders that often limit engineers to a certain perspective in evaluating problems.

      2. Mr. Sorrels analyzed the problems inherent in the direct downconversion of radio signals initially as a mathematical problem, and solved it with a mathematical solution. Only afterwards did he translate that solution to an electrical engineering solution.

      3. In doing so, Sorrells and his team invented an entirely new method of downconverting that had enormous advantages over prior technology and in fact makes possible much of today's generation of smartphones and other mobile devices.

      4. Parkervision retained Robert Sterne of Sterne Fox - one of the premier patent attorneys in the country - who prosecuted Parkervision's patents, appreciated the revolutionary nature of Sorrell's technology, and obtained ironclad and defensible patents for this technology in 1998 or so.

      5. Sterne also happened to represent Qualcomm and prosecuted over 100 patents for Qualcomm.

      6. Sometime in 1998, there were negotiations between Qualcomm and Parkervision regarding licensing PV's patented technology. I assume Robert Sterne was involved in the negotiations. Given the eventual size of the royalty offer by Qualcomm relative to the size of Qualcomm at the time, senior management of Qualcomm was involved in these negotiations.

      7. During these negotiations, Parkervision taught Qualcomm its revolutionary technology. Qualcomm eventually made a royalty offer that Qualcomm valued as having a present value of up to $678 million.

      8. For some reason, the negotiations between the parties broke down. This could have been for several reasons. If Jeff Parker was involved, his demonstrated incompetence could have killed things

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 2 Replies to overbrook10
      • Clarifications:
        1. David Sorrell’s LinkedIn profile lists: Georgia Institute of Technology, Electrical Engineering and Southern Polytechnic State University, Electrical Engineering Technology, Electrical Engineering. I think its fair to state that he has an engineering background but no formal RF/communications education or mentorship.
        5.1: Sterne made every QCOM representative reviewing the technology sign an NDA (who, when and what they saw); strong evidence for willful infringement if they did copy
        8. The deal fell apart because PRKR wouldn’t honor QCOM’s demand for exclusivity

      • 9. The negotiations could have failed because Parkervision wanted more that Q was willing to offer, or maybe Qualcomm wanted more than Parkervision was willing to give. Maybe Jeff Parker was just a boob and flubbed things.

        10. In any event, no deal was made, but Qualcomm had been taught Parkervision's technology.

        11. There was no real need for Parkervision's new technology in 1998 and 1999, because cell phones didn't perform all of the data -rich functions that they do today.

        12. Around 2006 or so, cell phones were transmitting data, photos, text messages and other stuff besides voice. Parkervision's technology makes possible many of those functions.

        13. So, in 2006, as far as I can see, Qualcomm just stole PV's technology, got their own patents on it and started using it in 2007 or so. Qualcomm has been using that technology since then.

        14. I can't remember the exact chronology, but somewhere around 2010-2011, some Parkervision engineers were at a convention and heard a presentation by a Qualcomm engineer that essentially presented Parkervision's technology as Qualcomm's. This presentation must have identified certain of Qualcomm chips.

        15. Parkervision investigated this matter and had Robert Sterne's firm perform a pre-suit analysis to determine if there was a basis for a patent infringement lawsuit. Part of this analysis involved a reverse engineering of one of Qualcomm's chips at a cost of $128,000.00. This teardown demonstrated that the chip in question uses Parkervision's circuitry. Subsequently, Parkervision identified over 80 chipsets of Qualcomm that uses the same technology.

        16. Parkervision was never able to enjpoy any commercial success with its inventions because it was a tiny company with no resources, no manufacturing capacity, no sales force and a monumentally incompetent management. There was no market for Parkervision because Qualcomm - a leading chipmaker- had stolen its designs and were selling them as its own.


        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Even the diehard longs must admit that fud's scenario does sound like a typical prkr/JP scheme.

      • 1 Reply to croaker_froq
      • Even the diehard longs must admit......No Croak. Not even close. It's sounds like bull*** to me. Fud says "talk up a 5% chance..." Really? Someone's kidding right? An OVERWHELMING VICTORY in the Markman ruling but PRKR only has a 5% chance of winning the lawsuit. Does anyone, anyone even give this a shred of respect?

        The world is still flat. While even your fearless leader, TODAY, posted the world was indeed round and noted the issues of WHEN longs win the infringement case, that it won't be much when we win. Funny how it's always bad when shorts speak about it.

        Now, I hate to tell you shorts what you should do, but you all need to have another meeting and get on the same page. Did someone miss a posting? Pvnotes has moved on to "You'll win, but you won't win much" and Fud - who didn't get the memo - is still saying we have a "5% chance of winning."

        Such chaos and confusion in the ranks.

        BTW.....It's one thing to "go short" and bet on the idea that a company will fold. But there's a reason I have posted about "slimy shorts" in the past. it's all about shorts who are not content to let a company fall or rise as it may, but try to influence the fall. That's slimy, more so when they deceive and spread falseness to achieve that. Slimy.

        Sentiment: Buy

    • Fud, you said, "3. Qualcomm was unable to verify those performance claims, and saw no commercialisation potential in the ParkerVision technology." Fud, talk about taking liberties. How the heck to you know this? You'll post about anything as though it's true. Qualcomm was not only ABLE to verify PRKR's technology, THEY STOLE IT!

      Good grief.

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to longprkr
      • Here's Qualcomm's version. As Qualcomm has named 95 current and former employees as witnesses I rather fancy they will all tell the same story -

        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.)

    • Fud, your entire scenario is based on assumptions not in evidence. Quit working so hard trying to convince people. The trial will make it clear who is right. I’m starting to believe you or your employer may have a larger short position than Dr. F.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

0.210.00(+0.05%)10:30 AMEST