Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 7:41 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 49 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter3 fudfighter3 Dec 28, 2013 8:40 AM Flag

    Roundermatt - your problem is not my problem

    Here is YOUR problem -

    1. Prucnal testified that in order to have energy transfer as defined in every one of the claims at issue - current from the carrier signal would need to flow into a storage device, from which the baseband would then be generated.

    2. Prucnal testified that in the Qualcomm architecture - the double balanced mixer creates the baseband BEFORE it hits the TX filter.

    3. No evidence was produced, and nor was it suggested, that the MIXER is capable of storing energy.

    Now would be a good time to dispute the above. Failure to do so will be taken as an admission that you cannot.

    I am absolutely certain that the only reasonable interpretation of this testimony from Prucnal (ParkerVision's sole independent expert witness) is that the accused products accomplish the down-conversion of the baseband from the carrier wave in a non-infringing manner.

    Even if somebody here had a reason to explain to you precisely how the mixer in the accused products accomplishes the down-conversion without the energy accumulation essential for infringement it would be too late to prevent a JMOL of non-infringement.

    Judge Dalton will decide in January / February if any of the evidence could have been accepted by a "reasonable mind" as evidence of infringement.

    You need to identify evidence SUPPLIED DURING THE TRIAL which could be accepted by a "reasonable mind" as evidence of infringing down-conversion.

    I don't need to do any more than to point to that all-important admission by Prucnal. His evidence of non-infringement clearly implies that NONE of the 25 pages of evidence of down-conversion was evidence of infringing down-conversion.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Too bad for you, fud, but implications have not a thing to do with the legal standard for JMOL or appeal.

      To reach your conclusion, the courts must ignore the statement you drone on about and only consider the rest of the trial record (including that 25 pages). And, of course, you admit to never seeing, hearing or looking at that record, yet you want people to sell their PRKR solely because Qualcomm - shutout on claim construction, validity and infringement - says there was no such evidence to reasonably support the verdict.

      fud: His evidence of non-infringement clearly implies that NONE of the 25 pages of evidence of down-conversion was evidence of infringing down-conversion.

      • 2 Replies to roundermatt
      • PRKR investors or shorts have more to consider than the findings on the JMOLs. First, that this is just one stop on the appeals typical of large initial verdicts - the amount that is economically justifiable which can be from tens of millions to, as in this case, 100s of millions. Secondly, what PRKR is able to do with whatever degree of win might work out from the initial verdict. Companies that have achieved success as patent licensors have most often done so by licensing their technologies/patents broadly. That is particularly the case for wireless RF and similar component technologies where the benefit of technology is spread across many applications at relatively low cost per patent license. That places the onus on Parkervision to finally fulfill Jeff Parker's promises for sales or licenses or products.

        To be redundant: PRKR has spent the past ~15 years ratcheting up the scale of promises in order to ratchet up the paid in capital. Call that what you may, it now results in the need for PV to reach a level of sales that can only be met by either cementing the solitary 'win' against Qualcomm and by going beyond that to license or sell products to others. During the last conference call, JP and his hired advocate claimed that licensing the technology should now be easy peasy and, also that product sales should soon commence. Although, as typical, details were left to imagination, the build up was, as in the past, for near term results.

        So, where are the results? Where are the sales and licenses? Thus far, not even a minor licensee with revenue paid into PV has resulted. No sales of PV's ICs either.

        Tract one: PV must secure final determination of award through appeals or agreement by Qualcomm.

        Tract two: PRKR must sell enough technology/patent licenses and products to become profitable, reaching a scale commensurate to paid in capital etc.

        Both tracts remain nebulous.. history of PV serves as the guide.

      • "... yet you want people to sell their PRKR solely because Qualcomm - shutout on claim construction, validity and infringement - says there was no such evidence to reasonably support the verdict."

        All I want is to ensure you and your equally dishonest buddies don't unduly influence gullible newbies with your assurances that there is no chance of a JMOL of non-infringement in January / February.

        But I AM looking forward to see how the pumpers here act as the potential "Demolition Day" draws ever closer.

        It simply doesn't matter what drivel you serve up. Every intelligent observer knows that the argument for a JMOL of non-infringement is so compelling that each and every one of you pumpers privately considers that outcome to be a very real possibility - and is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to sell his shares beforehand, and buy back if ParkerVision survives the JMOL decision.

    • ...further:

      1) Qualcomm provided testimony including evidence of voltage levels at various points in the circuit including across TX filter capacitor which showed no increase/decrease correlation to the baseband signal as would be the case if energy is being stored and then used as per PV D2P claims.

      2) True, Prucnal testified that the Q circuit has the same architecture as conventional double-balanced mixers. Then he agreed that the baseband must be generated prior to the TX filter cap. An additional factor that debunks PV's wild fairy dust assertions is the several orders of magnitude higher transmit signal level/energy that is imposed on the TX capacity compared to the received carrier and baseband signal level. Parkervision's experts and Mr. Fairy Dust David Sorrels were forced to pursue a theory of circuit operation that themselves had to admit was circumvented by the clearest of evidence in the case but also was theoretically and practically impossible. Every EE student who has taken basic analog circuit analysis class work and many common radio shack hobbyists understand the basics of circuit operation well enough to understand this.

      So the longs might understand it: You cannot throw your cherry cone into the public pool and get a taste at the other side... the 'signal' is far too diluted.

      3) The mixer does not store energy in a conventional way, ie using a R-C storage stage. That is partly due to the way the double-balanced mixer works: it commonly measures the BB signal at four points in time/phase angle that are 90 degrees apart. The greatest advantage can be made by using the signal properties to sum signals even when the absolute values are plus and minus and to correlate signals to cancel out noise - both that of the signal environment and switching/self-generated circuit noise. If this were stored as per PV's patents the result would be to grossly inappropriate negating of signals and pass-through of noise.

      • 4 Replies to teamrep
      • Team, if you have $ riding on what you say, you should talk to a technical advisor. The same current going into the cap as coming out is exactly the function of a storage cycle. All that goes in is stored and then comes out. Neal conveniently ignored time in his statement that "the baseband current flies by the capacitor". Your pool analogy would be appropriate at DC. A better analogy for ac/RF would be golf balls in a pool with basketballs. They can be easily separated by a filter! See post "D2D = Energy Transfer Sampling"

        Its a shame Neal was the only "expert" to testify on QCOM's behalf.

      • Overbrook, re your -

        [ Here is your problem Rep/fud - assuming the truth of everything you say - why did Qcom fail to call one witness to the stand to testify as you have so persuasively argued? There is only one possible explanation for that failure- and I am sure the jury came to the same conclusion - just as an appeals court will. Unfortunately, there is just no way around that problem ]

        - there's a fundamental concept here you seem to be struggling to grasp. The party which alleges patent infringement must first provide acceptable evidence of the alleged infringement.

        It's not a case of "I accuse you of infringing my patents - prove you didn't!" That's not how the judicial system works in civilised countries.

        ParkerVision's sole independent expert witness testified that for infringement to occur the baseband MUST be generated from energy accumulated in a storage device.

        He also testified that the mixer in the accused products creates the baseband before the filter comes into play.

        ParkerVision neither suggested nor provided evidence that the mixer acts as a storage device.

        There is only one possible explanation for that failure - and I am sure the jury came to the same conclusion - just as an appeals court will. Unfortunately, there is just no way around that problem.

        ParkerVision failed to meet its onus of proof - leaving Qualcomm with nothing to dispute.

        Without evidence that the accused products met that one essential criterion for infringement - generation of the baseband from the carrier wave by means of energy accumulation and discharge - all of the other evidence provided was merely evidence of non-infringing down-conversion.

        If you don't believe me, at least have the good manners to confirm you understand what your fellow-Long Tampa posted -

        [ Neal closed with; "we respect the jury and courts time, and since you heard Dr. Prucnal testify under oath that double balance mixers do not infringe.... ]

      • Rob: There's no way to reconcile what you are saying now with your statement below to fud from five days ago.

        Prucnal had an answer for the voltage levels, referencing specific wave forms he measured.

        There's just no way Qualcomm's parts can be a continuous mixers based on that testimony. So the case can't be overturned on the factual argument by fud, Qualcomm, or now you vs. you from five days ago. This is the province of the jury, not the court.

        And, even if Qualcomm had put in evidence and testimony - facts, weighing of evidence, and credibility, are all for the jury, not the courts.

        Meanwhile, you, Farmwald and Fud still can't explain what Qualcomm's parts are - irrelevant to your hopeless arguments against the verdict, but highly relevant your despicable intellectually dishonesty.

        teamrep to fud from five days ago:
        "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.

      • Here is your problem Rep/fud - assuming the truth of everything you say - why did Qcom fail to call one witness to the stand to testify as you have so persuasively argued? There is only one possible explanation for that failure- and I am sure the jury came to the same conclusion - just as an appeals court will. Unfortunately, there is just no way around that problem

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

 
PRKR
1.37+0.05(+3.79%)Jul 21 4:00 PMEDT

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.