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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • roundermatt roundermatt Mar 26, 2013 12:23 AM Flag

    So QC engineers are "dumber" than a Jax jury, Farmwald?

    Where is QC interrogatory or document with the post-offer/LOI claim of invalidity Farmwald?

    As the interrogatories in dkt #206 you are so fond of clearly state:

    Like you, Farmwald, QC initially staked its rejection on a purported lack of benefit, NOT invalidity.

    If it was so "made obvious" by prior art; why wasn't it "obvious" to the engineers at the world's most successful RF company?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The 1st steps are finding if it works, not i I have never know of a product or technology being considered for a as a contingent design-in being rejected because a patent was not granted. Companies buy-in technology, to seek a benefit in performance, lower cost, ease of supply, or preference of their customers. Companies do not license/pay for patents for no commensurate benefits. Experience and review of contracts and legal cases shows that it common to engage in agreements to evaluate technology with several contingencies: XX amount up front or on a progress payment basis for incorporating the IPR, optional bonus payments based on proof of performance, grant of patents, or other conditions. I've seen contracts which provided a license rate based on the technology as proprietary value-add and a higher rate upon grant of patents. I have seen agreements that are conditional based on grant of specific claims: if claims are granted that allow stronger defense of the end product, companies might agree to pay a higher rate.

      I put in a 'master license' sub-agreement in which the licensee could sub-license the technology to other's in their business segment. The client company loved the idea... it allowed the licensee control and a 50:50 split of royalties. We gained because they had the legal department, money, and positioning seek out licensing, monitoring and enforcement.

      The point is that companies are motivated by commercial gains, not by whether patents are valid. It is common to evaluate tech under NDA and provisional agreements only to abandon them if they do not work or otherwise are not used. Upon rejection, there is little or no reason to pursue invalidation.

    • : why wasn't it "obvious" to the engineers at the world's most successful RF company

      It was completely obvious to Qualcomm. They gave PRKR invaliding prior art in 1999, and in 2012. Multiple engineers at Qualcomm stated that there was absolutely nothing new in D2D.

      Are you capable of reading and understanding the PACER documents?

      • 1 Reply to pvnotes
      • Are you capable of understanding the question I've repeated several times now? Once again, we both agree that QC alleged prior art in March 1999.

        Where we might differ is whether they alleged it after the offer/LOI, several months later. Do you see anything on Pacer that proves they did?

        As to your 2007 posts: you did not cite any specific art in those posts.

        Liars have trouble with details, and you are having that problem tonight in both respects.

    • Here's two - there's lots more:

      Who else, besides Parkervision, has a technology converts A to D without mixing two waves together
      No one, of course. But then Parkervision D2D does, in fact, use a mixer. You clearly haven't read any of the D2D patents, as all of the patents clearly describe a direct conversion receiver, where the RF signal is *mixed* with a constant reference frequency which directly converts the signal to baseband (i.e. DC offset). This is the same as every single other direct conversion receiver ever built, including the 100's of millions of receivers per year currently being built by Broadcom and Atheros.

      In 2002 David Sorrells and Gregory Rawlins attended a workshop on "DIRECT CONVERSION TRANSCEIVERS FOR CELLULAR & WIRELESS APPLICATIONS". I was told by people who attended the workshop (I wasn't there) that Sorrells made some outrageous claims about D2D and was basically laughed off of the panel. My source said it was pretty embarrassing. Parkervision has not attended this (or, as near as I can tell, any RF conference since then). Supposedly he didn't really understand that the block diagrams and mathematics of D2D are basically the same as other direct conversion receivers, and that he just "reinvented the wheel" using his own completely non-standard terminology.

      Unfortunately, it's fairly easy to show that D2D is functionally essentially identical to various other forms of direct conversion receivers - which were first invented forty years ago. Changing the meaning of words and unnecessarily convoluted mathematics may have gotten the D2D patents past some patent examiners - but anyone who really looks at the patents can see that they are describing old ideas.

      No one, absolutely no one, in the RF industry takes D2D seriously and haven't for years. By the way, even Jeff Parker isn't trying to sell D2D anymore...

    • Oh, by the way, if you look back at my posts over the last 8 years, I've been quite clear that D2D both had no value and was not original (i.e. the patents were invalid). The posts are there (in the Yahoo board and on pvnotes) for anyone who cares to verify this.

      I have also predicted that D2D had no value and would never shipped by a licensee; D2P didn't work at all, and would never ship or generate any revenue; ITT would never produce any royalties; Via would never produce any royalties; LG Innotek would never produce any revenue. I think my record over the past 8 years has been pretty good. The same set of clowns on this board attacked every one of these statements with the same transparent BS as they are now doing.

      My predictions on this lawsuit will eventually prove just as true.

      • 4 Replies to pvnotes
      • While other's may accuse you of 'patting yourself on the back', the most telling way to understand the odds of what will take place is based on past results/predictions. Any fool who sizes up what Jeff Parker et al have said vs. the 'bashers' or 'shorts' can tell who has been right and who wrong/lying.

        The facts are that Parkerscamavision has never had success selling their technology. After the many millions spent in attempts to develop circuits that deliver on the purported breakthrough inventions, Parker has wrung up a long string of failures.

        If you take a step back and view this as 'what's missing from the picture' overview, it has not been a dastardly plan to reject Parkerscamavision's technology outright. As PVnotes pointed out, Q, ITT, Innotek, and others have reviewed the tech and chosen not to take advantage of it. While resolution of the legal battle remains open, the fact that Parkerscamavision has not been able to operate similar to the norms for technology development.

        The general plight of inventors is not easy: they must often pursue development of their theories/inventions years in advance to sales. And they face challenges in getting it adopted and licensed. However, Parkerscamavision stands out as exceptional: avoiding standards groups, commercial adoption of their own parts/products, and rejection of among attempts at partnering where mutual benefits should have sped the IP into the market, Parker looks like nothing but a scam.. gilty until proven innocent by payments above the costs of investors investments.

      • And please don’t tell us the judge screwed up. He hired an EE expert approved by QCOM to advise him. I think it is safe to assume he is “skilled in the art”

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • Dr. F, while you are so busy patting yourself on the back, didn’t you also tell everybody years ago that the technology didn’t work period. Since the entire short argument is now invalidity, it seems they have conceded infringement so I guess it does work? Let’s see didn’t you also tell us more recently that you had people in the court room for the Markman hearing and that QCOM won hands down. On your web site you predicted PRKR would win only one definition. You were only off by 42 out of 44. With the number of nightly posts your desperation is becoming more apparent. Your followers will soon break ranks with you in order to survive. Couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • BS, blusterboy? I was just asking a question ...

        I know QC said the Nokia guy's paper invalidated, but then they made an offer/LOI ... where is the claim of invalidity by QC after the offer/LOI?

        If you are going to accuse me of BS, then stop your BS and answer, or admit it: there is no such document or answer, because QC renege on the offer/LOI based on purported poor performance, period.

        And while your at it, give me the time and date of ANY pre-lawsuit post here on Yahoo where you supposedly said d2d was invalid

    • It's quite obvious from the existing docs (already posted) that Qualcomm thought that both were true, i.e. that the PRKR idea was not new and was invalid under prior art ( of which they gave a few to PRKR in 1999, and have since produced hundreds of invalidating prior art references), *and* that the PRKR chip was of no value as either a receiver or transmitter.

      I think it's quite clear that Qualcomm went to extreme efforts to give PRKR every chance to proof that D2D had some value, i.e. they tested multiple versions of the PRKR chips and it failed the tests every time. Qualcomm gave up the discussion by the end of 1999, and told PRKR that it had no interest in further discussion - end of story.

      Does anyone really believe ParkerVision's failure to get *any* licensee for D2D to actually build and ship a product is somehow due to a vast conspiracy organized by Qualcomm and the entire RF industry? The much simpler (and true) explanation is that D2D simply has no value and is (also) not new.

      What Qualcomm has implemented in the passive mixer in the QSC6270 is an extremely old idea. PRKR did not invent it. It is described quite perfectly in Tayloe and in van Graas. All PRKR managed to do was get some clearly invalid claims issued by misleading the patent office. The legal system (and the market) will eventually figure this out.

    • I seem to remember reading an exchange whereby ParkerVision begged Qualcomm to reduce the number of examples of invalidating prior art it intended to produce, and Qualcomm telling ParkerVision that the answer would be for ParkerVision to reduce the number of claims of infringement.

      Does that ring any bells with you? Please tell me if it doesn't - I'll be only too happy to locate the exchange and post it word for word if that would be helpful.

      • 1 Reply to fudfighter4
      • From Doc 152-9

        (8)(i) Once Parker Vision has reduced the number of claims asserted in
        this case to a manageable number, Qualcomm will consider ParkerVision's request to
        reduce the number of prior art references/ combinations it asserts invalidate
        ParkerVision's claims. We have been asking ParkerVision to narrow the Asserted
        Claims to a reasonable number from the beginning of the case. We hope that
        Parker Vision is now prepared to do so. Please let us know if that is the case.

    • Rounder, this guy "takes the cake." Unbelievable. He's posting several times a day, almost every day. And this didn't start until PRKR won the Markman by a landslide. Doesn't take a weatherman to know which way this short wind blows.

      Sentiment: Buy

3.94-0.07(-1.64%)Oct 26 3:59 PMEDT