Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 7:21 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed for Thanksgiving Day

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter4 fudfighter4 Aug 7, 2013 12:55 PM Flag

    Longprkr hoping to prolong this scam by lying

    As far as I am aware neither ParkerVision nor McKool has ever claimed -

    1. that ParkerVision addressed the serious compatibility problems Qualcomm identified in 1999 (after ParkerVision had finally supplied D2D evaluation boards) including LO radiation, DC offset, isolation, and baseband dynamic range.

    2. that Qualcomm secretly overcame those problems and used D2D (a universal downconverter which eliminates the need for balanced transistor pairs).

    Document 270 reveals that the allegedly-infringing architecture used by Qualcomm is a substantially different passive downconversion architecture to D2D - developed independently by Berkana, a company Qualcomm acquired five or six years after those fruitless negotiations in 1999, and several years after the active-mixer "ZIF" technology Qualcomm had developed by 2002.

    The allegedly-infringing architecture -

    a) is not a universal downconverter.

    b) requires four balanced transistor pairs.

    How desperate must Longprkr be to resort to blatant lies such as -

    "Why this company's not worthless, just ask Qualcomm. They loved the technology they stole."

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • More stupidity from this cheap wannabe shyster -

      "But lying just to pump this stock just doesn't make any sense to me."

      So ..... why do you do it? Both of the following claims of yours are blatant lies -

      "PV chances are as good as Q ---- or better."

      "It's safe to say we're MORE honest than 90% of the shorts we've had to suffer on this Board on that topic alone."

    • You're amazing Fudspreader. You've got it all worked out. Parker had a clear and convincing win at the Markman hearing - an overwhelming victory actually - which history notes bodes well for whoever wins the Markman. But listening to your short bashing, poor Parker doesn't have a chance. Wow. You've got it all figured out. Tell McKool to go home, Case is over? "Blatant lies?" Hmmmm....then they whole legal team for Parker must be liars. Ooops. Your legal team was chastised for calling Parkers's legal team "liars" this in the courtroom. They were so tied up they ccouldn't even keep proper decorum. Tsk, tsk.

      Simple fact Fudspreader. Parker has filed suit that Qualcomm has infringed. It's not over Fud, not by a longshot. I am excited for the hearing. Save your questions. Questions are the shorts modus operandi They're only rhetorical anyway. You don't ask questions to get to the truth, you ask question to further your short position. If the truth hit you in the head with a hammer you'd not acknowledge it anyway. What games get played on this Board.

      I'm just fine Fuddie boy. Fine and ready for October 7th's hearing. Hammer away Fud. It just doesn't change what's coming. Not in the least. Call me all the names you need to. That might make you feel better and could be a way to handle your anxiety prior to the October 7th hearing. You do seem anxious the way you attack.

    • The wild claims for damages/awards would be laughable if not for the vagaries of juries. Among misconceptions is the value of any particular patent to the device or equipment fields. The misconception arises from the belief that 'our patent is enabling and thus alleged infringing supplier XYZ should pay out a large portion of their profits." The nature of communications is that there are many parts that must work together to deliver the competitive result. Today's SOCs have RF, multiple processors and GPUs, I/O, memory management, sensor interface, etc. The device that the chips help enable contain cutting edge display screen technologies, RF component assemblies, etc. All that hardware/firmware is part of the broader device ecosystem comprised of OS and applications software, graphics command abstraction/human interface and presentation formats... such mundane things as placement of icons on the screen can what is fought in patent battles.

      Studies point out the absurdity of wild valuation claims: My own studies of 3G and 4G field and more recently SeC, Social eCommerce, patents, had revealed similar numbers to those shown in recent articles such as WSJ: "5 misconceptions about the tech patent wars"

      The article does not go into much detail.. however, its correct in pointing out that Samsung holds several thousand patents. I studied the '4G' patents for over 12 years.. and saw early activity by Samsung and others. Samsung went after 4G early and strong. The point is a matter of degree that any one company can hold up the industry with patents in a select area. I won't go into a comparative study.. its not worth anything to me except to try to bring this to light for others to pursue as they wish.

    • Come now, that's not fair - Longprkr is not very technical - the poor fellow is even challenged by counting.

 
PRKR
1.050.00(0.00%)Nov 26 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.