Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 May 12, 2014 3:03 PM Flag

    The hammer is about to fall on ParkerVision

    From an actual JMOL of Non-infringement (RIM vs Mformation) -

    [ Thus, the Court finds that there was no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" on which a reasonable jury could have found for Mformation on the issue of infringement.]

    Judge Dalton has now denied certain requests from either side for JMOLs. In those instances he must have identified evidence which might have persuaded a "reasonable jury" to return the same verdicts as were returned in this case.

    But Judge Dalton hasn't yet ruled on Qualcomm's request for a JMOL of Non-infringement.

    Trublvrprkr would have us believe -

    "Clearly, given his words on royalties, the judge has decided to dismiss those JMOL requests, but felt compelled to hear Qualcomm's last oral arguments before issuing a detailed denial."

    Utter drivel.

    Judge Dalton's only concern as regards his JMOL decisions is whether or not ParkerVision provided evidence during the trial which might have caused a reasonable jury to find as this jury did.

    So if ParkerVision DID provide evidence of infringement - as trublvrprkr and the pumpers who attended the trial have repeatedly claimed - what reason could Judge Dalton have had for sending poor little ParkerVision into this final negotiation phase with Megabucks Qualcomm with a far weaker bargaining position than ParkerVision is legally entitled to?

    Either there was evidence which could reasonably have been construed as a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for the jury's verdict of infringement - or there was none.

    For me the only reasonable explanation here is that Judge Dalton is certain that if he ratifies the jury's verdict of infringement the Appeal Court judges will tear him to pieces.

    He knows ParkerVision has little choice but to take the case to the Appeal Court if he overturns the jury's verdict. This is his last throw of the dice at persuading Qualcomm to make an offer acceptable to ParkerVision.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fud... Please spare us your drivel. You are making a fool of yourself as usual.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Oh dear, another fudspreader; and only the version 2 model (even slower than model 3).

      Dalton confirmed with QCOM that the Jury’s verdict was within the body of evidence wrt validity and infringement. QCOM didn’t present the slightest of rational to support their JMOL’s and went back to the “the PV circuit looks like the Weisskopf circuit” and the “Prucnal Admission? Dalton’s questioning and statements gave me assurance that he “gets it.” He put the burden on QCOM’s legal team, rather than the Jury, for not presenting testimony and evidence supporting their JMOL theory in front of the jury.

      It was pretty clear to anyone at the May-1 hearing that Dalton had given much thought to the JMOL’s, asked questions to confirm his thoughts, and didn’t hear anything to change that thought. When Neal and Teeter droned trough their stale arguments, Dalton drifted off to email, or whatever was on his PC. I think he would have ruled from the bench on the two open JMOL’s, but wanted to take additional care to prepare the ruling and opinion. If he had any doubt about denying them, he would have never asked the parties to negotiate on royalty and interest; as it would be pointless. I still believe that for the negotiation to be taken seriously, Dalton will need to issue orders on the two JMOL’s within the 30 days. Assuming they don’t reach terms, Dalton can set royalty and interest, and QCOM can wire a bunch of money to escrow.

      QCOM's only purpose of appeal is to delay PRKR getting $'s which would fund additional patents, lawsuits and licenses to QCOM competitors.

      • 1 Reply to tampa2013
      • I'm dreadfully sorry - I seem to have missed the bit where you explained why Judge Dalton sent poor little ParkerVision into this final negotiation phase with Megabucks Qualcomm with a far weaker bargaining position than ParkerVision is legally entitled to by virtue of the evidence if infringement ParkerVision supplied during the court case.

        I must have nodded off. Would you mind terribly repeating just that bit please?

 
PRKR
4.91+0.05(+1.03%)Aug 24 4:00 PMEDT