Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter3 fudfighter3 Oct 25, 2013 9:25 AM Flag

    The most important finding from this trial

    Qualcomm is NOT using ParkerVision's technology.

    As far as I am aware - nobody, including ParkerVision itself, is currently using D2D.

    ParkerVision provided ample proof that Qualcomm tested D2D, and that a few Q employees were initially excited about it. P claimed that Q subsequently stole D2D.

    But right from the start it was obvious Q was not using D2D - and the jury agreed. Had the jury found that Q was using D2D after Q's earlier enthusiasm about D2D, a finding of wilful infringement could not have been avoided.

    The jury instead found that P's patents covered the Q technology. But that finding was wholely dependent upon a definition of "non-negligible amounts of energy" which was entirely inconsistent with ParkerVision's implied meaning of that term.

    ParkerVision -

    [ It has been a fundamental belief since the advent of radio communications that whatever technique is employed to extract the data from a wireless radio carrier should not distort the integrity of the radio carrier in this process. D2D technology "- the patent technology -" contravenes this long-standing tradition by making a clean break with this philosophical belief, and in fact the D2D technology not only distorts the radio carrier waveform in the process of extracting the data, it actually destroys the carrier waveform, favoring instead to use the carrier's own energy to create the bits of data. ]

    Qualcomm -

    "The energy is taken from the carrier signal, modulated carrier signal, in an amount to distort the carrier signal and moved into storage. This is absolutely clear. This goes to the heart of the matter in this case, Your Honor, because Qualcomm does not do this."

    Judge Dalton accepted a definition of "non-negligible amounts of energy" (proposed by P) which widened the scope of the patents to cover architectures which DO NOT extract so much energy from the carrier signal that the carrier signal is substantially distorted.

    How likely is it that the Appeal Court judges will agree?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fud - excuse my density- how can you say that Qualcomm is not using Parkervision's technology when the jury decided that Q was infringing of Parkervision's patents? Thanks

    • Fud - excuse my density- how can you say that Qualcomm is not using Parkervision's technology when the jury decided that Q was infringing of Parkervision's patents? Thanks

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to overbrook10
      • OK - I see what's confusing you. You're under the impression that whenever a jury returns a verdict that a technology falls within the scope of a patent, ownership of that technology passes to the owner of the patent.

        That's not how it works. The Qualcomm technology does not draw so much energy from the carrier signal that its removal causes substantial distortion. In fact it is substantially dissimilar to ParkerVision's claimed invention because it still needs the four balanced mixer pairs ParkerVision claims are not needed with D2D.

        From ParkerVision's promotional material -

        [ The Benefits Of RF Energy Sampling - D2D

        Mixer Challenges

        - Typical On-chip Mixers Require 4 Balanced Transistor Pairs

        - Net Result For Direct Conversion Transceivers:

        ... Power Consumption Increases
        ... Performance Is Challenged By DC Offsets & Re-rad
        ... Less Than Optimum Chip Yields Due To Balanced Analog Circuitry Requirements ]

        The Appeal Court judges will ensure that ParkerVision gets what it deserves.

    • That's right. Furthermore, Qualcomm got PV to admit that the function of the infamous RC capacitor they claimed was used to store the negligible amounts of energy, blah, blah, blah, was part of a bypass circuit and that the measurements that Qualcomm had shown did not show the necessary drop. This contradiction was/is inexplainable. According to Parkervision, apparently there is 'non-negligible fairy dust' that is created by the magic word 'D2D' that measurements cannot detect. That makes it OK for PV's eminent inventor, Dr. Fairy Dust himself, Mr. David Sorrells to both testify that something is present and not present at the same time.

    • For the benefit of investors new to PRKR, here is the all-important patent claim -

      [ A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal, comprising the steps of:

      (1) receiving a carrier signal;

      (2) transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal, at an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier signal plus or minus frequency of the lower frequency signal, divided by n, where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier signal; and

      (3) generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred energy. ]

      ParkerVision DID NOT patent the use of energy from the carrier signal to generate the lower frequency signal - merely its generation by means of sampling "non-negligible" amounts of energy.

      ParkerVision's promotion of D2D made it abundantly clear as to what ParkerVision meant by "non-negligible" - as did the testimony under oath of the lead inventor of D2D.

      ParkerVision's expert witness acknowledged during his testimony that there are methods of passive downconversion ParkerVision did not invent -

      "Unlike other passive mixers, however, the energy sampler's sawtooth-like waveform at the integrating or storage element ..."

      Berkana/Qualcomm worked out how to generate the lower frequency signal by means of sampling insubstantial amounts of energy.

 
PRKR
0.366-0.024(-6.15%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT