Nubuzzman - "I have practiced law, and tried more cases, than Cawley and Hummell combined ... "
Overbrook - "I have been trying cases for 35 years, and so have some familiarity with the subject we are speaking about."
Urspond was actually in Court during the proceedings.
Tampa was actually in Court during the proceedings.
So when a relatively uninformed individual such as myself makes an allegation with MASSIVE implications for the chances of ParkerVision getting anything out of this law suit -
that ParkerVision was required to establish the processes which comprise the Qualcomm "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal" so that the jury's verdict as to whether or not the method infringes was legally sound
- why doesn't one of these four informed Longs put up a quick post which explains why ParkerVision did NOT omit a fundamental step in the legal process?
And why do none of the other Longs just ask one of these four informed Longs to debunk my allegation?
WHY do you think that the longs have to keep answering your baseless questions and mis-statements of fact? WHY do you continually try to insert your opinion and perspective in place of that of the judge and jury.
The short answer to your question, Fud, is that nobody cares what you think. The longs care what the jury and courts think, and we all know the answer to that which is the reason you keep posting this baseless statements in a pathetic attempt to distract people on this board from the real issue, which is that PRKR won and QCOM lost.
Fudzy, Unpoint your questions, and maybe you'll get an answer. I don't even know what your asking half the time. Best I can say, and Dalton confirmed on the 1st with a statement to Neal & Teeter, is that the jury verdicts fell within the body of evidence and Qualcomm "case strategy" called on no experts to support Neal's position.
Maybe I can impose a question to the soiled-shorts on the board. What happened to your pimp-daddy Farmwald? Is he busy silently covering his shorted shares, or tucked in his shell afraid of repercussions on past activities?
Paraphrasing, Dalton said; two experts (Sorrells & Prucnal) testified that they had reviewed the evidence (conference paper and QC design review docs) and testified that the QC circuit(s) infringed.. He further went on that if QC council was concerned about all the products being included, they should have objected or testified otherwise in the jury's presence. He said, the jury obviously found PV's experts credible.
I think we can move on to when Dalton might rule on remaining JMOL's (IMO 90+% chance denied and issued by May 23rd), whether the parties agree on terms (IMO unlikely, though they could agree on interest), what the willful enhanced royalties will be (IMO, 2.5 X jury), and uncertainty of appeal (IMO 80% affirmed).