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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • prkrnewbie prkrnewbie Mar 18, 2013 12:38 PM Flag

    Is PRKR already fully valued???

    This is now the third time I'm asking these questions. I'm starting to suspect that OB's and Rounder's failure to respond is itself a response. But I think there's more to the story here, so I'll ask again:

    doesn't PRKR need the largest patent verdict in the history of the world to justify the current valuation? Let's put aside willfulness for now, as Apple vs Samsung showed how hard that is to obtain (Cawley's jury appeal won't matter since I think that's decided by the judge). Doesn't the current price pretty much already factor in a decisive victory for PRKR, leaving little upside potential?

    Are there any other licensing possibilities? To whom? For how much? How long will that take to collect?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "Is PRKR already fully valued???"

      IMHO it's not only "fully valued" but outrageously overvalued. Even if you think their patents will hold up (I don't), and they win a judgement (I don't think they well), then I think a reasonable royalty at most would be a few cents per share. For fun let's triple it to satisfy the "3X damages!! crowd), then round it up. So call it 10 cents (ARM gets about 4 cents per chip for providing a massive part of most smart phones today). 10 cents on say 2 Billion chips = $200 million. Lop off say 25% for the lawyers and you are at $150 million. Even with a 75% chance of success that would be about $100M against a current market cap of $300 million. Add in the dilution that is coming shortly and it's a sick joke pretty quick IMHO.

      I expect them to start suing others so they will have some overlapping pie in the sky. This is the most logical course of action.

      Their last hope of actually selling something, if it ever existed, seems to have vanished with VIA dumping them, canceling the licensing agreement, and now "Parkervision" has to keep paying VIA an undisclosed sum just to keep the dream alive.

      I shorted at $4 recently.

      Touts that claim $1B+ judgements are blowing smoke IMHO and no nothing about IP licensing in the semiconductor space. 3 cents a chip would be a huge royalty.

      My target price is $0.

      Have a great day.

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • not even close to its value after Cawley busts QCOMs #$%$ in a little over 6 months

    • No time to reply right now- I actually have a day job. However, a $1 billion verdict translates into a little over $12 per share gross. Treble that and you get about $37 per share. Then add in future royalties.

      Nobody really knows except the parties because we don't know what the numbers are - I think they are going to turn out to be huge.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 2 Replies to overbrook10
      • Well, you and Trub certainly have made your position clear - you guys think that this case is a slamdunk win worth 2-3x the largest patent case in the history of the patent system. Wow, that's quite a position. Me, I prefer to invest with a bit more of a clear head. I think PRKR wins this case and gets a healthy win, but 2-3 times what anyone has ever done before? I just don't see it - QCOM simply isn't that big a target. It's not like they are intel or something. Trub's analogy to a bank robbery is entertaining, but completely off target.

        So let's be realistic and assume that PRKR matches the biggest win ever and gets $1 billion. 30% of that (at least) goes to McKool, leaving $700m. There is at least a 10% chance of loss, leaving $630. We'll take at least 3 years to collect, so NPV is about $500m. Then there are expenses and reserves for future litigations and licensing programs.

        Yep, the way I see it this company is already fully valued. Probably explains recent stock action, as clearer heads are prevailing. i was hoping for a short squeeze but it didn't happen, I'm getting out.

      • Sounds good.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • newbie:

      I will, for the moment, take you at your word when you describe yourself.

      If someone robs a bank and gets a billion dollars, do the authorities say, "Well, nobody has ever gotten a billion dollars in a bank robbery before, so lets just call it a million-dollar robbery." No, they don't. Precedent has nothing to do with what has, in fact, happened.

      And if it turned out that the robber was a bank vault inspector who learned significant details about the bank and its vault before deciding to pursue a life of crime, don't you think the judge and jury might hold his professional betrayal against him when it came to sentencing.

      If -- IF -- Qualcomm is found to have infringed, the profits they have gained and the damage they have caused to ParkerVision would be unprecedented. And IF they are found to have infringed, the history of the two companies, the NDAs and failed negotiations makes willful infringement almost a certainty, despite the fact that willful infringement is a rare verdict.

      Stick to the facts of this case. There is little precedent to describe what is alleged to have happened here.

      • 1 Reply to trublvrprkr
      • Trublvrprkr - I see you're now sufficiently desperate to attempt to conceal the fact that a verdict of infringement would have a vastly inferior value to ParkerVision to a verdict of wilful infringement.

        We both know why. ParkerVision's chances of a really big result via a verdict of wilful infringement are probably viewed as negligible by anybody with a modicum of intelligence. ParkerVision scored a major own-goal in that regard when they told their investors that Qualcomm would need a licence to use the ZIF technology - and subsequently presented Qualcomm with an admission that the patents were unenforceable via the decision not to sue.

    • Don't mean to shut you down. But Overbrook has written a ton on this. All's you have to do it research his posts over the last three months and you'll have all you need.

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to longprkr
      • I don't think he has. Everything I have seen assumes a finding of willfullness and treble damages. But my research shows that is actually very hard to get - even in a circumstance where one company deliberately copies from a competitor (Apple vs samsung). In fact, it seems that courts rarely increase damages based on willfullness, esp when the damages award is already very high.

        As a lawyer he must know this, so I'm guessing there is more to the story than meets the eye. is it future licensing? if so, to whom, and for how much? What must PRKR invest to get their hands on that money?

4.86-0.01(-0.21%)Aug 23 4:00 PMEDT