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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 5, 2014 7:39 PM Flag

    Lots of little lies protecting the big lie

    What do these have in common? -

    Scott26nova - [ Dear Scammy, Fudfighter and All the Other Screen Names that You Use ]

    Longprkr - [ Scott: This is Rippy's MO. He doesn't want to stay on the main topic, so it's always "hocus-pocus, change the focus" and next thing, it's all about how you don't know something ]

    Puerile fabrications - intended to protect the most important fabrication of them all - that energy accumulation is part of the method by which the accused products down-convert to baseband signal.

    The truth is that while ParkerVision's independent expert witness did match via a Qualcomm schematic all four steps of the patented "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal" to four processes performed by the accused products - at no stage did he claim that the method by which the accused products down-convert from carrier signal to baseband signal involves all four of the processes he singled out.

    He deliberately deceived the jury - presenting his evidence in such a manner that the jury ASSUMED all four processes must be part of the Qualcomm method.of down-conversion.

    But under cross-examination he was forced to admit that down-conversion occurs BEFORE the processes he claimed correspond to Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion.

    A second witness also acknowledged that down-conversion to baseband signal occurs earlier in the circuit. There was no contradictory evidence.

    If you're new to this long-running farce you need only ask one of the Longs here to cite evidence that energy accumulation is PART of the method by which the accused products down-convert to baseband signal.

    There simply is none. And without that crucial evidence Judge Dalton can have no valid grounds for refusing to overturn the jury's verdict via a JMOL of Non-infringement.

    Without evidence of that all-important infringement criterion, the entirety of the evidence ParkerVision did supply can amount to nothing more than evidence of down-conversion.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I don't understand all of it

    • So many i lost count of them :D lol

    • is underlying the entire history of PV since the company sold off its camera technology to focus on selling stock based on a succession of fabrications that technology PV discovered was more than

      • 1 Reply to ogdon_queen262
      • Tampa, your -

        "Fudzy, would your "second Witness" be Mr. Neal? To my knowledge he was the only person to speak in QCOM's defense regarding infringement. However, council isn't a witness."

        - is particularly amusing considering it was you who drew my attention to the second acknowledgement that down-conversion to baseband signal occurs BEFORE the alleged energy accumulation in the TX filter capacitor -

        Budwin (PV's Lawyer): "the baseband signal goes into the capacitor and doesn't fly by it"

        Rezavi: "Yes."

        Btw - anybody would think from the most recent changes to the ParkerVision web site that ParkerVision expects Judge Dalton now to overturn the jury's infringement verdict via a JMOL of Non-infringement.

        Whereas the link to the documents posted from the court case used to be highly visible to as soon as the site was accessed - now we not only have to access the Investor Relations section, but realise that the link labeled 'IP update' conceals not only new patents issued but the links to the documents from both law suits.

        And I have a question for the Legal Eagles here. The links to the two sets of documents are labelled 'Documents filled'. Does the term 'filled' have a meaning which makes its use appropriate in this context, or should that read 'Documents filed'?

    • The Big Lie is that Parkervision's technology can be made to produce market competitive products. That is underlying the entire history of PV since the company sold off its camera technology to focus on selling stock based on a succession of fabrications that technology PV discovered was more than a passing enhancement to the electronics world.

      To understand the Big Lie start with asking 'whatever happened to Parkervision's circa 2002 "PVTV News" product, a line of robotic cameras, ie. a camera vision system that did some vision recognition to keep a person or other object within view of the camera, had achieved sales of around $15 million, resulting in successive stream of losses. PV claimed that PVTV was up and coming despite a low level of sales and losses incurred. They sold it off to concentrate on Dud2Dud (D2D) technology for which they received their first "omnibus" patent.

      What happened to the seed product PVTV product line that was once claimed to be a pivotal breakthrough in cameras? It was superseded by much higher levels of CCD vision systems coupled to vision tracking done largely in software that has become used in studio automation systems that out-compete the PVTV system... it became extinct.

      PV saw the writing on the wall and shifted to pushing D2D: " Co-founder and ParkerVision's CTO David Sorrells said, "We have completed the design of our first D2D based RF product, the PV-1000 802.11b wireless LAN transceiver IC, that is now being fabricated at a Texas Instruments foundry. We are confident that will meet or exceed the specifications of today's best performing Super heterodyne."

      Trouble was 802.11b was replaced by .11g then .11n and PV1000 lost out in competition. The Big Lie was Dud2Dud was 'bigger, bolder, better' (tks Jimmy F.)

      • 2 Replies to teamrep
      • teamrep -
        I read your post about the Big Lie namely that PRKR technology will not produce market competitive products. Can't quite sort out why you posted it. This is an argument that QCOM did not make at trial. And, even though the argument was not explicitly put before the jury, its verdict implicitly rejects the argument. QCOM has also not made this argument in JMOL motions - and consequently cannot raise the argument on appeal. So what is the point of asserting it here?

      • Where was the proof of bold claims for each successive product or technology? PV secured patents through the patent lawyer extended education campus called the USPTO but has never produced standard products anyone could buy through normal channels to test out for themselves. In my early career I worked for NV Philips and Fairchild Semiconductor and then became an independent rep for Honeywell and other products. Normal companies are much more transparent than PV: if an engineering department wants to test out a new chip, assembly, or board level system, they normally just order samples, such as PV said had been available for PV-1000 D2D 802.11b based assembly. That way companies can evaluate the thing based on their requirements. Normally a detailed specification is provided, often with the company's own performance test results. Companies compare that to their own tests performed on the samples. Their testing can, therefore, include inputs and tests for outputs that simulate how it would be used in their new or re-designed product.

        No company on record has used PV-1000 or any other product Parkervision offers for sale. PV still offers their out of date .11b. Why wasn't that updated to be used in 802.11g, .11n, .11ac? Could there be problems adapting Dud2Dud to achieve wider band response? Or was it, contrary to PV claims, more complex and costly? What investors know is PV has no sales of it or any other products or technology.

        The Big Lie in the current legal battle falls into the same fairy dust fantasy... claims without proof.

        This will go on through whatever happens in JMOLs probably to appeals. If no proof of use or function of PV's Dud2Dud tech persists, which will be the case imo, the result will be just the same as in the past... no use for it, no sales. Only this time there is unlikely to be 'moving on to the next circus tent' storyline follow up.

    • Fudzy, would your "second Witness" be Mr. Neal? To my knowledge he was the only person to speak in QCOM's defense regarding infringement. However, council isn't a witness.

      You finally concede that Prucnal proved Magellan samples, and transfers energy from the carrier to a low impedance load via a storage device. (the 4 processes) All those processes were shown clearly interconnected in the QCOM schematic. Kinda sad that QCOM spent $20M preparing this case and this is all they have: Trying the case afterwords in a JMOL? If it will help clear this matter, Prucnal read the patent text to the Jury, even taking care to substitute the court's definitions..If he wasn't referring to the QCOM architecture, what was he referring to? QCOM gets too cocky, they are going to blow their only win; willfulness.

      I may have to go down to the May-1 smackdown. I'm just afraid, Neals going to run on, Dalton's going to say get to the point, there wont be one, and he'll adjourn before mid morning rather #$%$.

      • 1 Reply to tampa2013
      • Tampa- one of the greatest regrets I have since investing in PRKR in April of 2012 was that I did not attend the trial although I had my flight and hotel room reserved. I should have gone. I want to once again thank you and urspond (didn't someone else alsop attend?) for your reporting during the trial. I will not attend the May 1 hearing but will definitely be at the oral argument before the Federal Court of Appeal in D.C. I believe the oral argument will once again demonstrate the weakness of Q's arguments.

        I am going to spend the $500 necessary to get the transcript of Prucnal's testimony and see if therte is any basis to Fud's incessant rants. One would think that if he had enough money invested in this, he would have spent the money and then cite specifically to the transcript for his position. Without the transcript, this is just a "he said she said" argument, and I believe you much more than the bashers.

        Moreover, the long position was reaffirmed by the briefs - including Q's Briefs. Bottom line is - if Q really had a valid non-infringement defense, Neal would have put one of Q's thousands of engineers (Whatever happened to Q Fellow Charles Wheatley?) or a hired expert to set forth the defense. And believe me, one of the first qquestions the Federal Circuit is going to ask Neal on oral argument of the appeal is why Q didn't have a non-infringement witness.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

4.70Aug 26 4:00 PMEDT