Rounder wrote "Don't believe a word of Farmy-spin...Absolutely everything he says is distortion"
I believe this earns you the "Pot calling the kettle black" award of the day, or perhaps the decade. Your endless positive spin on every PRKR concept from ITT through TI represents an unbroken record of impressive length.
Further, at each new turn, the company finds a new set of greater fools that sign on to pump their "agenda" of why "it's different" this time and history doesn't matter. They always sound the same.
But this time, it will "be different". Maybe. Maybe not.
Rounder--two questions for you
1. You say PRKR asked ITT for $18 million--I don't that information was ever publically disclosed by PRKR so how do you know it?
2. Did JP state in a public forum that QCOM would need a license from PRKR to sell ZIF?
You must be getting REALLY worried these days to pretend that the opinion of a single Qualcomm employee would be construed by anybody as proof that the ParkerVision patents do not cover the prior art to which he referred.
Fud- try making that argument to a jury. See how far you get. About as far as arguing that Qualcomm offering PV almost $700 million dollars in1999 doesn't mean anything.
This trial is going to be a bloodbath for Qualcomm. I am tempted to attend if the case doesn't settle./