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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • statesrip statesrip Apr 24, 2013 5:33 PM Flag

    QCOM still saying a loss vs. PRKR "is not probable'

    in the 10-q filed this afternoon QCOM again states, regarding the PRKR lawsuit that while"a loss is possible it is not probable".
    So, in a statement undoubtedly vetted, if not written, by attornies, QCOM is saying, even after the Markman ruling, that it believes the chances of PRKR prevailing are less than 50%. I would speculate that it probably believes the chances are substantially less than 50% to have put this statement in an SEC document.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You gotta make me laugh States - do you really think that a company - any company - would really state in their 10-Q that they think it "probable" that they will lose a lawsuit? That would certainly put Qualcomm in an unusual position when it comes to settlement negotiations. I have never heard of such a thing in my life. The only significance to that statement is the recognition by Qualcomm that, if Parkervision prevails, a verdict could be in an amount that would have a material adverse effect on its cash flow.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to overbrook10
      • No Over I don't think that a company would state that it was probable they would lose a lawsuit. If they thought they were going to lose they would most likely say nothing. The fact that they made the statement that is in the 10-Q is not common and for that reason it caught my attention when I first saw it a while ago. So laugh at something I didn't say or even imply and don't deal with the reality of what I posted because as usual you can't deal with it.
        BTW maybe you could get some legal help from Cadawalder and Havisham if you can find a phone number for them. LOL hot shot lawyer

    • That is massive States.

      You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of that guidance. Companies err on the side of extreme caution when it comes to the guidance they include in their SEC documents. To do otherwise is to leave themselves open to a class action on the basis that investors were misled.

      That guidance suggests Qualcomm is certain that on the basis of the Markman rulings it can demonstrate that the ParkerVision patents are invalid due to prior art.

    • If I'm remembering correctly, even Ladeberg-Thalman assigns a probability of just 33 percent to PRKR prevailing in their lawsuit. But they argue that the present value of even that probability is substantially higher than the current share price. And no, we don't need to hear Farmwald explain yet again how those incompetent boobs got it all wrong. We've heard it all before.

    • The attorneys probably have told Qualcomm that they think they can prevail, perhaps on appeal or through foot-dragging that may produce a favorable settlement. We shall see.

      I don't care if they win on appeal.

3.37+0.06(+1.81%)May 31 3:59 PMEDT