Tue, Mar 3, 2015, 6:14 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 3 hrs 16 mins

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Apr 26, 2013 6:44 AM Flag

    Breakout to $5 - $6 ?

    Interesting little article on The Street today - says that there is a possibility of this stock breaking out to $5-$6 per share soon. The mediation between Q and PV is scheduled to take place on May 6, 2013 a week from Monday. Although I don't think the case will be resolved at that time, it would be very strange if the parties aren't having some sort of settlement discussions. If there were news even that they are talking at all, it could cause this stock to rocket.

    The problem for investors is that we don't know what's been produced in discovery. Doug Cawley apparently was provided with Qualcomm's internal emails (as in the one regarding the Parsinnen reference) and you wonder what other internal emails he might have. From what can be seen from other cases, such as the Standard & Poors suit, it seems amazing what stupid things people will put in internal emails. I would not be surprised if he found some very embarassing internal Qualcomm emails regarding Parkervison.

    I still think Qualcomm has to settle this suit. It seems like Cawley has plenty of documentary proofs on the 1999 offer. Given the size of the offer relative to Qualcomm's total revenues at the time, it would not surprise me if Irwin Jacobs and other senior management officials at Q signed NDA's at the time. From the pleadings filed in the last 18 months or so, it seems like Qualcomm's real defense is invalidity, not non-infringement.

    This means that Parkervision's technology works. I never bought the argument of pvnotes and crew that it does not work - and they always trot out those memos from the Q engineers at the time (as if those were the only memos out there). If it doesn't work - the Qualcom could just blow off this lawsuit as a frivolous fling by Parkervision with no basis. Why would Qualcomm infringe of patents for technology that doesn't work?

    Contd

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • pvnotes does not claim that D2D does not work. He does claim that it offers no advantages and seconds the words of some Qualcomm engineer 14 years ago that it has little value. That engineer said it offered no advantages for reception or transmission, even though it is reception technology only, so we know how careful he was.

      It would be foolhardy to state that D2D doesn't work, since there are many WiFi products incorporating the technology still in use.

      On the transmission side, pvnotes says that D2P doesn't work at all, but D2P is not the issue in this litigation.

    • You say, 'given the size of the offer etc.
      My question to you is very simple--what time period did the offer cover. If you don't know the answer then you have no basis for making the statement it was big in relation to QCOM's size e.g if the offer was over a 20 year period with the payments growing over the life of the offer then in fact it was a very small offer for QCOM to make.
      So do you have the answer or are we simply dealing with another of your bs assertions designed to try and pump the stock which seems to be your only job.

      • 1 Reply to statesrip
      • According to my recollection the offer was betwen $638 million and $678 million - present value in 1999 dollars. At the time, I believe Qualcomm's total revenues were $3.9 billion. So the offer was close to 20% of Qualcomm's total revenues - in present value.

        And no - I'm not trying to pump the stock. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation about an investment that I have a lot of money in. I admited that the huge short interest concerns me - I am wondering what the shorts know that I don't know. However, no matter how I slice and dice the lawsuit, I think Qualcomm has to settle.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • If the technology doesn't work, why go crazy and do things like suing your own lawyers (Sterne) on a bogus claim that anyone could see was going nowhere? Why not just say in the lawsuit that Parkervision's technology doesn't work, trot out all those old memos, point out that Qualcomm could not be infringing on patented technology that doesn't work , and be done with it? If this is such a bogus lawsuit, why list it on Qualcomm's latest SEC filing?

      There's lots more - but one thing no one talks about is the elephant in the living room, viz. the 18 million shares sold short on this stock. I have to admit, it worries me - as in, what do they know that I don't? However, if there is any positive news - a leak of the damage report alleging $2 or $2 or $4 billion in damages or news that the parties are talking turkey or weak dispositive motions by Qualcomm - there could be a huge short squeeze. Given the volatility in this stock, and its sensitivity to developments in the lawsuit, I would be a little worried if I am short.

      The one thing about this stock is that, once a development takes place, it takes place and it's over - and if you are on the wrong side of the street, too bad. So, if you were on the wrong side of the stock when the Markman came out - too bad - you will never see $2.50 per share again. Same thing here - if this breaks $5, you will never see $4 again.

      Of course, these are just my musings while we await the next development. Qualcomm may have dug in its heels, and taken a scorched earth, no-pay position. Either way, I think they lose - but, hey, that's just my opinion. I'm just going to get more popcorn and watch the rest of the show.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

 
PRKR
0.98+0.030(+3.15%)Mar 2 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.