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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • roundermatt roundermatt Mar 5, 2013 12:28 PM Flag

    Don't believe a word of Farmy-spin

    Absolutely everything he says is distortion; exactly as he accuses others of doing:

    He knows pv asked itt for 18 mil to teach them d2p, so they couldn't become the next qc, and that there was no rejection of the technology or any lack of reasonable prudence under the circumstances.

    Qc clearly played pv; timeline shows initial skepticism was overcome; offer was used to induce teaching; specious excuses for rejection were then made to cover theft

    Laches and equitable are a joke; one no name witness and unclean hands

    Best shot prior art not just dismissed by judge, but abandon by Hummel on email revelation

    Patent broker is killer; minimized and distorted by Farmy trying to get out in front of what will ultimately steamroller him

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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.

      Time will tell and the opinions are my own.

    • 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.

4.14-0.17(-3.94%)Sep 26 3:57 PMEDT