I repeat, PV notes has been the most accurate poster on this board (for at least seven years), but being a relative newbie you would not know that. If you want to denigrate Notes, and by association me, then why don't you tell the board where Notes has been wrong, particularly on major issues. Your post was pathetic (like most of your no-value-added posts) so show us some intellect show us where Notes has been wrong. Lets say gives us at least three examples of his mistakes although five would make your case better. My prediction is that you won't be able to deliver the goods hotshot.
That’s “Mr. Hotshot” to you States. It seems you can’t delineate the difference between “accurate” and “balanced.” Oh yea, PV notes has documented the failed side of PRKR’s business issues and does so as a dedicated website just for that. But PV notes has an AGENDA, and that is to only (even if accurately) report the negative.
Let’s think of you States. A website dedicated to finding and broadcasting your negatives would have lot’s of material to work with. But that not ALL of you. There’s half of you that goes unexamined – and therefore unreported. You can be accurate about ½ of something or someone. But please don’t confuse accurate with being balanced –they’re simply not the same thing.
Let’s keep our focus. This all started with my claim that you’re a Martian who can’t seem to understand Overbrook and I are in this for the Patent Infringement case. You wrote back and begged to differ, but then said the “most accurate” source of information on this Board had claimed the Markman went heavily in Qcomm’s favor. Bullsheet. Complete Bullsheet. Whatever PV noteshas said about PV’s business model, I couldn’t give a sheet. But to use PV notes to justify anything about the patent infringement case is mixing in a way that doesn’t work. To take PV notes and say, if effect, “because” they’ve been accurate about the business side of PV is now you claim PV notes should be taken as gospel about the Patent Infringement case?
A step out on a branch that doesn’t support you. That’s the untrustworthiness of anything characterized by terms like, “slanted,” “skewed,” or “biased.” I said before and it’s even more important to say it again, if PRKR cured cancer, PV notes would find something wrong with that. And wanting us to swallow that Qcomm prevailed in the Markman hearing – because PV notes said so? Try again shortie.