Re your -
"I’ve been a share holder since I bought a PRKR wi-fi card many years ago that increased the range in my home. I believe the technology works and also that QCOM stole it."
- you do NOT believe that Qualcomm stole ParkerVision's technology.
Not even ParkerVision / McKool have made that claim, therefore you have no reason to believe that.
You're just another desperate pumper.
It's also been demonstrated that the increased range of the PRKR wifi products had nothing to do with PRKR technology - they simply added an expensive and cost prohibitive antenna.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Wouldn't it be interesting if Qualcomm had purchased or otherwise obtained ParkerVision's WiFi product and then reverse engineered the chip? I wonder if there would be a paper or email trail concerning such events.
How good the WiFi product was, and why it was so good, is not relevant to the matter at hand. Maybe D2D has been superseded by newer developments. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't offer advantages. It doesn't matter.
All that matters is whether, since 2006, Qualcomm, for reasons known best to them, has been using all or patented parts of ParkerVision's reception technology and owes royalties and damages. Maybe Qualcomm chose to do what it is alleged that they did, knowing that it was inferior technology. I don't care. Show me the money.
It is undoubtedly true that the superb antenna and other circuit features had something to do with the stellar performance of the ParkerVision D2D WiFi products, despite Mike Farmwald's difficulty in following the instructions. However, the performance is testimony to the fact that the D2D circuit did, indeed, work extremely well, with a small footprint and no shielding. It was quite novel at the time.
Will you be terribly offended if we don't take your word on that Overbrook? It's a tad suspicious that you thus far have refused to point to a single court document which contains anything more than a vague suggestion that Qualcomm stole ParkerVision's invention.
We seen the typical ParkerVision ploy of offering information in such a manner as to deceive the observer into making incorrect assumptions - such as the manner in which they deceived the judge as to the relevance to this case of the royalty negotiation. Either point us to a clear accusation of theft of the invention (as opposed to infringement) or simply continue making unsubstantiated claims.
My reason is simply, in one of the initial filings from QCOM in this case, they claimed to be the co-inventor of the technology. They later dropped that claim but I can think of no reason for them to say it in the first place if they weren’t using the technology. Now I may be right and I may be wrong but there is no reason to call me a liar.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Noshort. Fud is unhappy. He flings names around with little provocation. I've told Fud how to find happiness. (1) Admit you're short (2) Get out of your short position, (3) go Long, (4) wait for the payday of the trial in October. With these simple four steps, the cursing and name calling could end. But, alas....he's so unhappy.
Irrespective of what you may previously have believed, your unwillingness to respond to the arguments I've offered on this topic tells its own story.
Furthermore, you are perfectly well aware of the evidence in the court filings that after been given the opportunity to measure the performance of the demo boards, Qualcomm's engineers could see no real benefit from using the technology - and told Parker there would be no further discussion unless it delivered better performance.