Yeah BJ ya bafoon! PRKR is up 4x from when it was almost bankrupt and delisted, isn't that good enough for you!? GOSH, I know some people bought at $40, $30, $20, $10, $5, $2.50 etc but that was then and this is now and now every thing is all better!!!!
PRKR has Cawley who is better than any attorney that ever lived, as proclaimed by roundermoron.
I don't understand why you just don't let Rounder's amazing wisdom mesmerize you and lose all control of your bowels????
Ski, yesterday, Paul Farrell of Marketwatch wrote an article about Facebook. What he said reminded me of the long term PRKR investors who still hang on after all the endless disappointments. After so many different wireless firms have kicked the tires and walked from PRKR “technology”, now they are to believe that one other has been using it all along.
Paul explains their mindset here: “….And nothing anyone says about the risks will change your mind. That’s the ‘psychology of denial.’
There are four main reasons for this pervasive psychology of denial among Main Street’s 95 million investors: First, investors hate admitting we’re irrational and ill-informed, so they cling to the fiction they’re rational. Second, optimism is the investor’s worst nightmare, but Americans still act optimistic no matter the odds. Third, Wall Street loves investors who are irrational, uninformed and optimistic; they’re easy to manipulate. Fourth, American investors are by nature trusting folks who want to believe Wall Street’s telling the truth, even though most of the time that’s not the case.”
It will be entertaining to watch it all play out. And as one of my patent links showed the other day, McKool Smith doesn’t win every case.
Still pondering the "material event" question. Some of the definitions I see suggest it should have been revealed. Especially in light the lawsuit now filed against Facebook on that issue.
But, I agree with you that it will be interesting to see the "evidence". I wonder if there were some board minutes taken, and subject to discovery.
Seems like burning the candle at both ends...treating "the offer" as not material then and material now.
The stockholders who lost money riding it down from the peak might consider themselves damaged by this.
The opinions remain my own.
my experience with this kind of dispute is that one side is usually the deceitful liars and the other side pretty much wears the white hat.
Now I've shown you Qualcomm egregiously mistates prior art,
and I've showed you that all PV has to prove based on independent claim 1, step 2 is that Qualcomm aliases the carrier at an aliasing rate,
and you have acknowledged how 'outsized' Qualcomm personal attacks have been,
and you have agreed it would be a bad move for Cawley to use an unsupported claim of this kind of order the way he has, and you have said he's one of the best ...
so, I think there is evidence and once Qualcomm's credibility is destroyed, PV should get the benefit of the doubt, even if the evidence is somewhat colorable - in fact, what usually happens in a situation like this is if Qualcomm can afford to gamble and hide some evidence (the larger the organization, the more risk to such a conspiracy), they will do it by hiding/changing only SOME evidence, and if their credibility is tarnished, it will probably backfire anyway.
So that's my basis, and it's obviously not pure, partisan speculation like yours, and I had never heard of PRKR when it traded above $40, or $30 for that matter, and don't believe I posted here until it was about half that price, and yes, they have been far from perfect, but I still think they can recover with the help for Cawley and McKool, who should get them a good licensing deal(s) and enough money to ramp a truly state of the art transceiver based on all their technology and maybe a lot more.
Let me get this straight: I agree that an offer from QCOM to PRKR for hundreds of millions of dollars for a patent license would be material. I am simply asking some straightforward questions on the particulars of the alleged offer - who made it? when? to whom?
You, on the other hand, are willing to take an unsubstantiated claim of such an offer and are trumpeting it as loud as you can as the gospel truth.
And *I'm* the one talking out of my a$$?????
Gee, with due diligence like that it's no wonder you thought this was a good buy at $40/share...
what's the prime example of "indecipherable" in their patents? ... I won't hold my breath for any substantive answer, because your criticism using generalities-only is probably baseless and you probably have never even read their patents, or if you have, are falsely characterizing or only capable of name calling, as opposed to reasoned discussion of any specifics
<What amazes me is why QCOM would ever have even signed an NDA with PRKR after reading their crappy indecipherable patents. >
<<That's exactly my point Rounder. A real offer wouldn't happen in a room with just two people - there will be other witnesses and documents in the files. And if that's what shows up in discovery I will be the first to admit that it is powerful evidence in PRKR's favor. But will you admit the opposite: that a declaration from JP of what he understood a QCOM exec to be saying in an informal conversation is no "proof" at all and thus the offer is not real?>>
I don't think there was an offer, but I think verbal offers are done all the time. The suppporting docs would be (if they existed) the valuation work that went into formulating and getting authorization for making the offer within QCOM. What amazes me is why QCOM would ever have even signed an NDA with PRKR after reading their crappy indecipherable patents.
it also legitimizes a large dollar value for economic damages, where the argument will not be as BJ wants to frame it - like a feature for calendars - but rather did the performance advantage differentiate the entire chipset to make it the leading choice of OEMs ... unless they were doing something unique in the Tx, I think that's a pretty strong argument in conjunction with such a large offer
An offer would mean that Qualcomm saw something of value in the technology. If their offer were to have been rebuffed, and Qualcomm subsequently decided to use the infringing technology anyway, that would make a rather strong case for infringement, if there was infringement, to have been willful. That would have a large impact on the size of any resulting award.
It is not evidence of infringement in and of itself; it is evidence that any possible infringement was willful.