Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter3 fudfighter3 Dec 24, 2013 8:14 PM Flag

    ParkerVision won the battle but lost the war

    1. ParkerVision's claimed invention is essentially demodulation (carrier wave-to-baseband downconversion) by energy accumulation and discharge -

    Q: And in order to have energy transfer as defined in every one of the claims at issue in this case, you need to have current from the carrier signal flow into the storage device, correct?

    Prucnal: Correct.

    Q: And then the energy -- then the current from the carrier signal, which is flowed into the storage device, is then used to generate the baseband, correct?

    Prucnal: Correct.

    2. The accused products demodulate without the aid of energy accumulation and discharge -

    Q: So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?

    Prucnal: Yes.

    Judge Dalton will decide in January / February if the evidence the jury accepted as proof of infringement could have been accepted by "reasonable minds" as proof of infringement.

    But the conveyor belt of contrived arguments which AVOID addressing this all-important testimony by ParkerVision's sole independent expert witness will doubtless continue to run at full speed until such time as either Judge Dalton or the Appeal Court judges finally deliver the verdict the evidence demands.

    Hope you all have a great Christmas, pumpers - the New Year could have an extremely unwelcome development in store for you.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Longprkr, re your -

      "You keep posting the same thing over-and-over."

      - your attempts at damage limitation are understandable in the circumstances. But for what it's worth - if you put a bit more thought into it and avoided assertions which can easily be debunked you might be a little more effective.

      For example, how often have you seen me use the term "energy accumulation and discharge"?

      And staying with your "same thing over-and-over" assertion, the possibility that ParkerVision's entire infringement case consisted of nothing more than a fundamentally flawed argument - that the accused products MUST be generating the baseband from a storage device, because "generating" REQUIRES discharge - never even crossed my mind until quite recently.

      A jury might be sufficiently gullible to simply accept a definition suggested by expert witnesses - but unless there is a new trial this dispute will be settled by judges, for whom the meaning of words is all-important.

      In a patent infringement case words mean what the dictionary says they mean, apart from words which are accorded a special meaning via a "Markman" ruling.

      The accused products generate the baseband from the carrier wave by a quadrature sampling process developed at Berkana - as opposed to the variation of aperture sampling used by ParkerVision which requires energy accumulation before the baseband can be generated.

      The filter in the accused products cannot demodulate something which is already demodulated, and is therefore a complete red herring as regards infringement of patents intended to cover a claimed method of demodulation.

      Neither you, nor any other member of the cabal which continues to try to monopolise this forum with posts feigning the utmost confidence, can still be harbouring the delusion that a JUDGE would believe the accused products incorporate ParkerVision's claimed "demodulation by energy accumulation and discharge" invention.

      • 3 Replies to fudfighter3
      • Roundermatt, re your -

        "fud: How is it the "defining moment in the trial" when the jury disagreed, your fellow short/Qualcomm-mouthpiece, teamrep, openly disagrees and even tells you to stop droning on, and there's no basis for JMOL or to appeal?"

        - DO try to act a little more as one would expect a mature person to act. You must now be in a very bad place indeed to continue to misrepresent Teamrep's comment after he has corrected you on TWO separate occasions.

        Teamrep pointed out that I was guilty of "droning on" and "oversimplifying".

        Prucnal's admission was the defining moment simply because the two independent claims of the key asserted patent commence as follows -

        1. A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal ...

        23. An apparatus for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal ...

        Prucnal admitted that the mixer in the accused products performs the down-conversion.

      • Tampa, re your -

        "If only QCOM had testified to FUD's point, it could have been put to rest at the trial."

        - Neal changed his plan to put an expert witness on the stand after the defining moment in the trial (below). If it ain't broke, don't fix it -

        Q: So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?

        Prucnal: Yes.

      • Is teamrep a "member of the cabal" fud? He told you that you're wrong and droning on - case closed.

    • GIVE IT UP FUD, EVEN QUALCOMM MOUTHPIECE "TEAMREP" SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!!!

      teamrep replying to fud:
      "In other words a "signal" COULD be generated by the filter in the accused products - but the mixer DOES, in fact, create the baseband." .. Why drone on about this so much? A capacitor is very often used in a RX circuit to accumulate the very weak received signals during sampling periods so that measurements can be made. You dare not tying that to the current situation very well imo.

      • 1 Reply to roundermatt
      • You misconstrued what I said... a capacitor/accumulator is often used in receive circuits. Qualcomm's circuits do not use a RX capacitor. I have pointed out numerous times, including yesterday, that the TX filter capacitor 'sees' orders of magnitude higher transmitted energy levels that in Q's words 'swamp out' the received signal. I challenge Parkerscamavision to show how their theory for accumulating energy in the TX capacitor could work. Furthermore, I said it cannot work... as any 2nd year radio shack hack understands.

    • You keep posting the same thing over-and-over. Actually, the exact opposite is coming. The New Year will bring more court decisions burying your short position even further.

      • 1 Reply to longprkr
      • Longprkr, re your -

        "Accurate is not the same as balanced. You and statesrip have NEVER said anything positive about PRKR. Ever."

        - it's difficult to point to a realistic upside without first seeing one.

        What I WILL do from now on to show willing is to regularly highlight comments from balanced observers .....

        ---------- NOVOCAINE FOR THE SOUL ----------

        1. Longprkr - "The New Year will bring more court decisions burying your short position even further."

        2. Tampa2013 - "Seriously though, I can't imagine what negative news for PRKR could be on the horizon."

        3. Roundermatt - "Nothing but upside!"

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