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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • nubuzzman nubuzzman Nov 8, 2011 1:28 PM Flag

    We will see who is "overmatched"

    In the Florida District Court
    With a Florida Federal Judge
    With a local plaintiff {PRKR)
    A Fotune 500 Company defendant represented by the "east Coast" bigshots
    A BRILLIANT local trial lawyer representing PRKR
    and, MOST OF ALL, a local JURY/

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Like I said last November..............How do you like it Dr. F?

    • I would suggest to those who have access to Pacer read the Courts order docketed today. Seems like the east coast big-shots have not exactly endeared themselves to the Court.

      • 3 Replies to nubuzzman
      • "I would suggest to those who have access to Pacer read the Courts order docketed today. Seems like the east coast big-shots have not exactly endeared themselves to the Court."

        nubuzzman, you must be referring to this quote from the order: "As in many discovery disputes, both sides have cited to persuasive authority for their respective positions." I agree, this is a scathing indictment of the "east coast big-shots." <<sarcasm>>

      • I read it. What do you see as concerning for qcom's counsel? Seems to me to be a fairly routine discovery order - the court gives qcom most of what it is looking for (re the SKGF billing records), denies part of it and tells the parties to work together going forward (which courts always do in early discovery-related orders).

        Nothing remarkable there some other order you are referring to?

      • Are there even enough trading shares out there for these fools to cover?
        Or are they going to be shorting/covering from each other? LOL

    • How about a failure to deny the offer in a response that takes every other possible specious cheap shot one could think of - all totally without foundation.

      I'm more encouraged by each pleading ... especially Qualcomm's!

      Now, just as with your hyper-technical, completely misleading explanation about interrogatories as evidence (they would always eventually lead to admissible deposition evidence, if material), I await your next bs excuse for Qualcomm

    • The truthfullness of an Answer to Interrogatory is sworn to under penalty of perjury. You don't play with a Federal Court

    • The action against Sterne is completely irrelevant to this case. The judge will probably sever it from the PV action. My opinion only

    • Nubuzz, QCOM's well-pled factual assertions are presumed true when the court considers Sterne motion, so it is actually a high standard for Sterne to overcome. Nonetheless, Qualcomm doesn't have an answer on the waiver they signed in 2010 - an affidavit saying that the clear language is not what they intended should not be able to overcome the motion to dismiss, or at the very least to sever or abate

    • Lawyerman; you are right on. The pleading filed yesterday by QCOM "implies" that somehow if Stern assisted in the preparation of the suit, the use of PRKRs technology is justified. The so-called litigators that post and bash PRKR daily, have no idea of the standard of proof necessary to sustain a motion for summary judgement, quite obviously.

    • Back on November 8th I told you so..............PRKR has THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE FORUM, THE BEST LAWYER AND THE JURY going for them and if I weren't long for some time, I would certainly be long tonite......the upside potential boggles my mind......Shorty better get out of the way...............AMEN

    • You've been crapping out this "2 year" business all over here. Do you really think QCOM is not going to settle ASAP just to continue on with AAPL and others without hangovers?

    • If you look at,_Counterclaim_and_Demand_for_Jury_Trial.pdf starting at item number 151 on page number 46, Qualcomm states that

      "During the course of Sterne Kessler’s early representation of Qualcomm, there arose a time in early 1999 (just prior to the issuance of the first of the Patents-inSuit) that Sterne Kessler sought the consent of Qualcomm and ParkerVision for Robert Sterne to represent ParkerVision in (ultimately unproductive) negotiations between ParkerVision and Qualcomm concerning technology of which ParkerVision claimed ownership."


      "The negotiations between Qualcomm and ParkerVision concerned direct conversion technology that ParkerVision claimed to own. No agreement resulted from those negotiations"

      This agrees with the time frame stated in the recent filing. This shows that Qualcomm agreeing that they were negotiating for the rights to the technology.

    • View More Messages
5.97+0.23(+4.01%)12:24 PMEDT