With regard to this advice you offered to Statesrip -
"Get off the Board unless you have something substantive to say - such as why Judge Dalron is going to issue an injunction in this case under the EBay standards."
- an injunction will only be possible if Judge Dalton allows the jury's verdict of infringement to stand (i.e. denies Qualcomm's request for a JMOL of non-infringement).
So why are you more interested in banging on about Mike Farmwald's old posts than in answering this question I asked you yesterday which actually DOES have relevance to the potential for an injunction -
[ ParkerVision simply failed to offer evidence in support of the allegation that the accused products perform down-conversion by means of energy accumulation and discharge.
Do you agree?
If not, kindly point us to the evidence you believe would be accepted by a "reasonable mind" as evidence that the mixer in the accused products - which Prucnal testified performs the down-conversion - does so by means of energy accumulation and discharge. ]
OMG. Now this is rich. Now we have two non-technical people bantering. Keep one technical aspect of your argument and keep pounding that drum Fud.
Another reason? Maybe it's because all that you shorts have said would happen, HAVE NOT HAPPENED. You do though, drum up "The Sky is Falling" scenario's to try to convey Parker is due for an imminent collapse. Sorry Chicken Little, Parker is moving along and it's not going to collapse.
Anyone can see that now Fud. Cover your short shares and exit. Before the court issues it's next rulings.