Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

fud.fighter2 5 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 19, 2016 9:17 AM Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 19, 2016 9:17 AM Flag

    What were you hoping to gain from misrepresenting the facts Mr. Angry?

    Everyone can see that my initial "smoke and mirrors" post addressed the Samsung deal.

    You responded as you've always responded when confronted with an inconvenient argument, by switching the focus to the motivation of the author of the argument in the hope of concealing your inability to offer a credible response to the argument itself.

    Only then did I cite an earlier example of an inconvenient argument you chose not to address (because it highlights both ParkerVision's blatant dishonesty, and the absence of a legally sufficient evidentiary basis that always seemed likely to determine the ultimate fate of the first law suit).

    Here's another opportunity for you to offer a CREDIBLE response:

    ---------------

    1. As indicated both by Sorrells and by the simulation on ParkerVision's web site, D2D envisages a storage device such as a capacitor receiving a signal at relatively high frequency and outputting a signal at substantially lower frequency via discharge of accumulated energy.

    ParkerVision knew all along, via a reverse engineering of a Qualcomm chip BEFORE ParkerVision initiated the first law suit, that there was zero evidence that -

    the relatively high frequency carrier signal is able to reach a capacitor in the accused products

    or

    the lower frequency baseband signal is generated by a capacitor in the accused products.

    ---------------

    2. One would expect the Samsung deal to include licensing fees for future use of ParkerVision's patented technology, PLUS a multi-million dollar initial payment to cover all prior use of the technology.

    But instead of shouting from the rooftops "Here's the proof that our patented technology is being used in several hundred million smartphones", ParkerVision prefers not to release ANY financial details?

  • Reply to

    Of course shorts say this "might" be a bad agreement

    by longprkr Jul 18, 2016 11:31 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 18, 2016 1:30 PM Flag

    Apologies for my complete ignorance regarding the ITC procedure, but could this licensing deal be used to satisfy the "economic prong" criterion?

  • Reply to

    More ParkerVision smoke and mirrors?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 18, 2016 11:48 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 18, 2016 1:16 PM Flag

    Longprkr - even though I have already told you I have never had any financial interest in PRKR you still resort to your favorite ploy of deflecting criticism.

    Worth noting that you never once sounded out any of the people whose advice you allegedly trusted when you made your various investments in PRKR, so that you could offer an honest response to arguments such as the following:

    ---------------

    As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that D2D as described by its lead inventor during the first court case has EVER worked.

    As indicated both by Sorrells and by the simulation on ParkerVision's web site, D2D envisages a storage device such as a capacitor receiving a signal at relatively high frequency and outputting a signal at substantially lower frequency via discharge of accumulated energy.

    It's been claimed that ParkerVision has produced devices incorporating D2D. But where's the evidence of method of operation?

    ParkerVision knew all along, via a reverse engineering of a Qualcomm chip BEFORE ParkerVision initiated the first law suit, that there was zero evidence that -

    the relatively high frequency carrier signal is able to reach a capacitor in the accused products

    or

    the lower frequency baseband signal is generated by a capacitor in the accused products.

    In fact Prucnal volunteered the testimony that switches (rather than capacitors) in the accused products "eliminate" the carrier frequency via down-conversion to baseband frequency.

    At no point did he claim that the latter is generated by a capacitor. If you doubt me, here's what Overbrook discovered -

    [ I reviewed Prucnal's testimony last night. Amazingly, not once in Budwin's questioning does he have Prucnal say that the capacitors generate the baseband. ]

    ---------------

    Longprkr - any HONEST investor would have left no stone unturned to reassure himself that ParkerVision had reason to believe that capacitors in the accused Qualcomm products output the baseband frequency.

  • [ ParkerVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRKR), a leading developer and marketer of radio frequency technologies used in advanced wireless solutions, announced today that it has entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliates (collectively, "Samsung") for the perpetual, worldwide license of ParkerVision's current patent portfolio, subject to certain exclusions. In conjunction with this agreement, ParkerVision will file a motion to terminate Samsung from a pending U.S. International Trade Commission investigation and dismiss its claims against Samsung in two United States District Court cases. The companies agreed not to disclose the specific financial terms of the agreement. ]

    One would expect such a deal to include licensing fees for future use of ParkerVision's patented technology, PLUS a multi-million dollar initial payment to cover all prior use of the technology.

    But instead of shouting from the rooftops "Here's the proof that our patented technology is being used in several hundred million smartphones", ParkerVision prefers not to release ANY financial details?

    Why am I getting the feeling that ParkerVision's Q3 report will turn out to be yet another reality check for gullible investors?

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 15, 2016 8:56 AM Flag

    Two pumpers at most posting under multiple aliases. Mr. Angry (longprkr / wallstrip) was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. Could simply be a case of him not having worked out how to find the board.

PRKR
4.21-0.01(-0.24%)Sep 30 3:57 PMEDT