In response to my request for hard evidence you replied -
"All of the hard evidence I've seen points to the following scenario ... 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."
Happy days :-)
I was seriously worried all the Longs here had to offer were entirely unsubstantiated allegations. But you did forget to tell us where we can see for ourselves the evidence that Qualcomm has been using said "accumulated energy" architecture.
Would you mind telling us briefly what you found which directly addresses that specific allegation, and cite the court document or documents where others more cynical than myself can see for themselves that you've finally come up with the goods?
On behalf of all of the investors who use this forum - thanks in advance.
How come you did not respond to the rather extensive chronology that I posted? You see - it is quite clear that you - and Mike Farmwald - have a very specific agenda - and that you will not let facts get in the way of the agenda. No matter what is posted - you will try to turn it into a negative for Parkervision. I find you untrustworthy - especially insofar as you post on another Board as one knowledgeable in the medical field with the company Insmed. I just want to know who is paying you.
If I thought your inquiries were made in good faith - I would take the time to try to answer them. However, they are not made in good faith. You are just part of an effort to put this company under. Between now and October, I expect much to be revealed - maybe even about you.
Farmwald's involvement is very troubling. I note that he started in crusade against Parkervision in 2007 just when it is alleged that Qualcomm started infringing on PV's patents. He and his wife were the primary individuals interviewed for the Barron's hatchet-job article in 2007. He has maintained a web site solely dedicated to bad-mouthing Parkervision since 2007 - and seems to spen an inordinate amount of time on this Board even today. Why? Who is paying him? This is the guy that a federal judge caught destroying evidence in a patent infringement case. I wonder what SEC regulations are implicated in his efforts to manipulate the shares of a publicly traded company. As I said - there's a real story here
"spends an inordinate of time on this board..who is paying him?" Over you spend an even greater amount of time on this board (even though you are supposedly a gainfully employed attorney lol) who is paying you?
Please Fud, Get hip will you? You say, "I was seriously worried all the Longs here had to offer were entirely unsubstantiated allegations." That's all BOTH sides have to offer here. You're not part of the legal team for Qualcomm, You're reduced to noting what legal docs they've posted. Same for Longs. How funny that whatever you say about Longs is the same for shorts. Duh! And you're always so quick to say you're the smart guy.
ParkerVision initiated this law suit - it's evidence to support ParkerVision's allegations which is key here.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Longs here post as though they had seen evidence that Qualcomm has been using ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" architecture. Yet I've been assured repeatedly that their confidence in the outcome of this case is NOT based primarily upon anything ParkerVision has alleged.
Why don't you answer a simple question for me - do you believe that any of the Longs can point us to evidence which directly confirms that Qualcomm has been using ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" architecture?