Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 5:01 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 4 hrs 29 mins

Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 41 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 5 hours ago Flag

    1. "In summary, Dalton's "fatal admission" misunderstanding can easily be rectified."

    On the contrary, the fatal admission is now impossible to rectify.

    You can't change what the jury actually saw and heard during the trial. The jury heard ParkerVision's expert witness confirm that "the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter".

    The sole evidence concerning energy accumulation relates to the TX filter capacitor, which the jury heard THREE people acknowledge occurs after down-conversion. That leaves zero evidence that energy accumulation is part of the down-conversion process.

    2. "That leaves us to is their sufficient evidence of infringement?"

    Judge Dalton didn't see any.

    It says it all about the hopelessness of ParkerVision's case that the best argument they can now come up with is that a "reasonable jury" would have understood something Judge Dalton failed to understand.

    Has it ever occurred to you HOW a judge determines the manner in which a "reasonable jury" would have viewed the evidence?

    I'm guessing not :-)

  • Is anybody else here getting a bit nauseous about Tampa's obsession with pleasuring himself in public?

    The guy appears to be suffering from the delusion that he knows more about the field than the expert retained at considerable expense by ParkerVision to testify during the court case.

    The following extract is from the opening argument in ParkerVision's Appeal document -

    [ Did the district court err in granting JMOL on this basis notwithstanding that:

    (1) ParkerVision's expert testified that the capacitors were essential to generating the baseband signal and that, without them, the baseband signal would not be generated as required by the claims ]

    There in a nutshell is ParkerVision's failed litigation strategy. The first question an Appeal Court judge would ask is this:

    Why the inclusion of the last five words?

    The expert SHOULD have been able to tell the jury that without the capacitors a baseband signal would simply not be generated.

    The expert SHOULD have been able to provide the jury with the results of a simulation whereby the capacitors were removed from the circuit.

    But the expert knew perfectly well from the outset that the mixers down-convert to baseband without assistance from the TX filter capacitors, and was one of three people the jury heard acknowledge that fact.

    The expert did testify that the capacitors accumulate energy and generate a baseband signal, but then confirmed that down-conversion to baseband signal occurs "before" the capacitors.

    Why would an expert say that - if he knew the processes in the mixers and capacitors occurred simultaneously?

    Clearly a "reasonable jury" could not conclude that the accused products infringe without evidence that energy accumulation is PART of the method of down-conversion.

    Just as Judge Dalton had no grounds for denying a JMOL of Non-infringement without that crucial evidence, the Appeal Court judges would have no grounds for overturning the JMOL.

  • Reply to

    The Appeal is based upon a tissue of lies

    by fud.fighter2 Sep 20, 2014 12:13 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Sep 20, 2014 2:11 PM Flag

    1. Once again, there was no conflict. Prucnal testified that the TX filter capacitor accumulates energy and generates a baseband signal, and then clarified under cross-examination that the baseband signal is down-converted earlier in the circuit.

    2. ParkerVision lied in claiming that the Qualcomm attorney tried "unsuccessfully" to wring that admission from Prucnal.

    3. All that matters now is that a "reasonable jury" - faced with the undisputed evidence that down-conversion occurs "before" the TX filter - could not have concluded that the accused products infringe.

    With access to time travel I'm sure ParkerVision would go back and educate their expert witness, so that he knew enough about the subject to say "No - it happens simultaneously".

    But it's too late now. Success or failure of an Appeal can only be based upon what the jury actually saw and heard at the time.

  • First example:

    [ Qualcomm's counsel asked several questions apparently intended to get Dr.Prucnal to admit that the capacitors play no role in generating a baseband signal.

    For instance ..... he also tried - again unsuccessfully - to get Dr.Prucnal to admit that "the mixer [referring to the switches under "1" above] has generated the baseband signal before reaching what he designated or indicated as the capacitor". ]

    The Qualcomm counsel was, in fact, successful in getting Prucnal to make the crucial admission -

    Q: "So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?"

    Prucnal: "Yes."

    In fact the jury heard THREE people acknowledge that the baseband signal is down-converted from the modulated carrier signal earlier in the circuit than the capacitor in the TX filter.

    Had there been the merest scrap of contradictory evidence Judge Dalton would have had no grounds for reversing the jury's verdict via a JMOL of Non-infringement. But, as the Judge stressed in his JMOL, there was no contradictory evidence concerning that key issue -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's testimony was contradictory on some points; however, it was consistent on the crucial issue that the baseband signal is created in the Qualcomm products before the storage capacitors which precludes a finding of infringement. ]

    For new investors - ParkerVision needed to provide evidence that the Qualcomm products down-convert to baseband signal using a combination of steps patented by PakerVision. The signature steps are the accumulation of energy, and the generation of the baseband signal from the accumulated energy.

    Prucnal's admission placed the energy accumulation and baseband generation steps allegedly performed by the TX filter capacitor as post-downconversion processes - and therefore not relevant to the claimed infringement of a method of down-conversion.

  • Reply to

    A brief heads-up for impressionable investors

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 21, 2014 3:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Sep 18, 2014 10:34 AM Flag

    "Are you saying the carrier after the switches is any different than it is before? An ideal switch is a short-circuit! " ?????

    Are you now trying to spin this by suggesting the modulated carrier signal is identical to the baseband signal recreated from the modulation - and that a receiver doesn't need to incorporate a mixer?

    Give it up. No amount of spin on the evidence presented could blind the Appeal Court judges to the crucial missing evidence.

  • Reply to

    A brief heads-up for impressionable investors

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 21, 2014 3:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Sep 18, 2014 9:14 AM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "By definition a process that takes in a modulated carrier and outputs a baseband signal, or lower frequency signal is down converting, no?"

    Yes. But misrepresenting what Prucnal actually said is of little comfort to anybody apart from yourself. Prucnal never claimed that the capacitor in the TX filter "takes in a modulated carrier".

    He merely claimed that energy from the carrier signal is accumulated by the capacitor, which "generates" the baseband. Obviously this could be claimed of every capacitor involved in a post-downconversion process.

    Prucnal deceived the jurors by matching the four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to four processes performed by the accused products, having withheld the information that the last two processes occur after down-conversion.

    Under the subsequent cross-examination he was forced to come clean -

    Q: "So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?"

    Prucnal: "Yes."

    Do you really think an Appeal Court judge could fail to spot the deceit?

    I've lost count of the number of times you've claimed that Prucnal's crucial admission was inconsistent with other evidence, when as Judge Dalton pointed out in his JMOL -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's testimony was contradictory on some points; however, it was consistent on the crucial issue that the baseband signal is created in the Qualcomm products before the storage capacitors which precludes a finding of infringement. ]

    I can't understand what possessed Prucnal to say Yes - instead of simply pointing out that there is no "before and after" :-)

    In any event a new theory inconsistent with what the jurors were actually told during the trial would be dismissed as irrelevant.

    The fatal flaw cannot now be rectified - zero evidence that energy accumulation is part of the method of down-conversion in the accused products.

  • Reply to

    A brief heads-up for impressionable investors

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 21, 2014 3:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Sep 17, 2014 10:41 AM Flag

    New investors would do well to note that the appeal brief dated September 15 (available on the ParkerVision web site) fails to rectify the fundamental flaw in the evidence the jurors actually saw and heard during the court case.

    The onus was upon ParkerVision to provide evidence that the accused products down-convert the baseband signal from the modulated carrier signal using the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision.

    The signature step of the patented method of down-conversion is the generation of the baseband signal from accumulated energy.

    ParkerVision argued that a capacitor in the TX filter accumulates energy and "generates" the baseband signal. But nobody at any point claimed that the processes occurring in the capacitor are part of the method of down-conversion.

    Crucially the jurors heard no less than THREE people acknowledge that the baseband signal is created earlier in the circuit. A "reasonable juror" would know that if the baseband signal has been created, down-conversion must have occurred.

    Furthermore ParkerVision provided no evidence that a modulated carrier signal enters the capacitor in the TX filter.

    Don't expect an Appeal Court judge to lose sight of the fact that ParkerVision failed to provide a "sufficient evidentiary basis" for a finding of infringement by a "reasonable juror".

  • Reply to

    Prucnal killed two turkeys with one stone

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 22, 2014 1:47 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Sep 9, 2014 12:31 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    [ Neal was successful with his tactic of confusing everyone! He injected "mixer", when there wasn't one, mixed time domain discussion with frequency domain. and broadly used the term "baseband" to lasso the whole process as occurring in the "mixer" which he defined as switches whit criss-crosses.

    If you ignore the terms used in trial (which are very misleading based on convention, "mixer" being the most nebulous next to "signal", and "baseband") and think about the process of electrons being sampled out of the carrier waveform ... ]

    1. Why should we ignore the terms used in the trial, when an appeal can only be based upon what the jurors actually saw and heard during the trial?

    All that really matters now is that the jurors were offered no evidence whatsoever that energy accumulation is part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.

    Although Prucnal testified that the baseband is "generated" from energy accumulated in the TX filter capacitor he also conceded that the mixer has performed the down-conversion by then - and nobody offered contradictory testimony.

    Had contradictory testimony existed ParkerVision would have highlighted it during the investor presentation purporting to lay out grounds for an Appeal - instead of merely repeating an argument already exposed as fatally flawed.

    Evidence of baseband generation is of no relevance without evidence that it occurs during down-conversion.

    2. Prucnal identified the baseband signal output as appearing on the "right-hand side of the mixer" designated by "BBOP and BBOM." (explaining that BB stands for baseband, O stands for output, P stands for plus, and M stands for minus).

    Can you guess which of these two an Appeal Court judge would consider relevant - your claim that there is no mixer, or ParkerVision's expert witness telling the jurors that the output of the mixer is the baseband?

  • Reply to

    Prucnal killed two turkeys with one stone

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 22, 2014 1:47 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 28, 2014 2:48 PM Flag

    Reality check for the pumper in imminent danger of being swept away by his own verbal diarrhea -

    "Dr.Prucnal identified the baseband signal output as appearing on the "right-hand side of the mixer" designated by "BBOP and BBOM." (explaining that BB stands for baseband, O stands for output, P stands for plus, and M stands for minus)."

  • Reply to

    A brief heads-up for impressionable investors

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 21, 2014 3:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 27, 2014 10:40 AM Flag

    Tampa, much obliged for your clarification of Prucnal's testimony regarding the processes performed by the capacitor.

    Your firsthand accounts from the Courtroom were invaluable - particularly the bit where Budwin, the ParkerVision attorney, acknowledged that down-conversion occurs earlier in the circuit than the capacitor -

    Budwin: "the baseband signal goes into the capacitor and doesn't fly by it".

    Rezavi: "Yes."

    Why would an Appeal Court judge view testimony regarding post-downconversion processes as relevant to infringement of a method of down-conversion?

    Can you cite any evidence which places the processes performed by the capacitor as part of the method of down-conversion in the accused products?

  • Reply to

    A brief heads-up for impressionable investors

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 21, 2014 3:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 27, 2014 8:37 AM Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    "Fud- you insists on ignoring Prucnal's infringement testimony."

    - I don't recall seeing any infringement testimony.

    The ParkerVision presentation purporting to set out the basis for an Appeal focussed solely upon Prucnal's testimony that a capacitor in the accused products performs the energy integration and generation steps of the ParkerVision patents.

    However Prucnal also testified that a mixer earlier in the circuit performs the down-conversion.

    Why don't you explain how an Appeal Court judge could view Prucnal's testimony regarding the capacitor as evidence of infringement of a patent covering a method of down-conversion, when his capacitor testimony only covers processes occurring AFTER down-conversion?

    Can you cite any evidence that a modulated carrier signal enters the capacitor?

    Alternatively - can you cite any other evidence of infringement overlooked by ParkerVision in that presentation?

  • Reply to

    A key fact the pumpers do not want you to know

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 24, 2014 4:11 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 26, 2014 7:23 PM Flag

    Why the amusement?

  • Reply to

    Mgdavis - you need to LEARN from your mistakes

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 5:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 26, 2014 7:12 PM Flag

    When you pretend to feel sorry for others it fools NOBODY here into thinking you've won an argument.

    The realists here despise your pathetic attempts to pump the stock. The established pumpers lost patience with you long before you acted like a child in branding trublvrprkr a basher because he was rude to you, when in fact trublvrprkr has been one of the leading pumpers here for years.

    You're a very rare specimen - a poster who has zero credibility in the eyes of every other poster.

    Btw - you might like to know that the "days to cover" is almost completely meaningless. If the Shorts did decide to cover in any great numbers the daily volume would go up substantially, bringing the "days to cover" down substantially.

    You're probably the only one here who didn't know that.

  • Reply to

    Mgdavis - you need to LEARN from your mistakes

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 5:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 5:38 PM Flag

    As do I. And it shows that I had no interest in PRKR for years.

    Amaze us all with your powers of deduction - how was I recruited for this alleged job as a paid basher?

  • Reply to

    Mgdavis - you need to LEARN from your mistakes

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 5:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 5:31 PM Flag

    Thanks. But copying from your posting history doesn't call for much in the way of creativity.

  • Ten years ago other investors tried to warn you after you posted this -

    "I also recommend doubling down on BKHM. Tell anyone, anywhere at anytime; put it on billboards, TV spots whatever."

    They didn't consider a whopping 73% short position a reason to buy.

    On April 16 you issued your recommendation to double down.

    On May 5 an earnings warning resulted in an immediate haircut of 25%.

    On June 25 the market cap had dropped to £160 million - down from £6 billion in just four years.

    Remind us all again - at what price did the Shorts finally cover their positions?

  • Reply to

    A key fact the pumpers do not want you to know

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 24, 2014 4:11 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 25, 2014 12:01 AM Flag

    Predictable as always.

    Prucnal confirmed that the double balanced mixer creates the baseband earlier in the circuit than the TX filter Prucnal had testified "generates" the baseband.

    You heard his testimony firsthand. Was his testimony about an actual generation of the baseband - or about a hypothetical generation of the baseband?

    And remind us again - did ParkerVision offer any testimony whatsoever which placed energy accumulation as part of the method by which the accused products down-convert the baseband signal from the modulated carrier signal?

    If so, isn't it about time you finally cited this crucial evidence - without which ParkerVision's chances of success should they take this to the Appeal Court are practically zero.

  • Reply to

    A key fact the pumpers do not want you to know

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 24, 2014 4:11 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 24, 2014 10:51 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "Please remind me of the public facts supporting your claim the Qualcomm utilized a double balanced mixer in ALL of the down conversion paths in all the accused products."

    - hopefully you'll be able to follow this explanation:

    The ParkerVision statement to which I'll again draw your attention -

    [ This report, along with Qualcomm's own documents that make clear that the receiver portion of the QSC6270 is, in all material respects, identical to the other accused products ... ]

    - means that either all of the accused products utilize a double balanced mixer, or none of them do.

    If none of the accused products utilized a double balanced mixer, ParkerVision's expert witness could not have made the all-important concession -

    Q: "So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?"

    Prucnal: "Yes."

    Therefore we know from ParkerVision statements alone that all of the accused products utilize a double balanced mixer.

    Your track record suggests that either you will not respond directly to this post - or you will, but in a manner designed to avoid an admission that I've debunked one of your favorite arguments.

  • The Wikipedia entry for Frequency Mixer includes at the bottom of the page a link to a Double balanced mixer tutorial.

    This architecture has been around a long time, and is a method of down-conversion not powered by energy accumulation.

    The first ParkerVision law suit against Qualcomm alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion powered by energy accumulation.

    Before initiating the law suit ParkerVision commissioned a reverse-engineering of a Qualcomm chip, which revealed that Qualcomm was using a typical double balanced mixer.

    That much was obvious from what was NOT claimed in this typical example of ParkerVision misdirection early on -

    [ This report, along with Qualcomm's own documents that make clear that the receiver portion of the QSC6270 is, in all material respects, identical to the other accused products, forms the foundation of ParkerVision's complaint, as well as its Ics. ]

    Surely this presented an obvious opportunity to broadcast the fact that the report constituted solid proof the accused products incorporated the method of down-conversion patented by ParkerVision?

    Problem was, the report revealed down-conversion without the aid of energy accumulation. And ParkerVision's expert witness was forced to concede that all-important point under cross-examination during the trial itself.

    In overturning the jury's verdict via a JMOL of Non-infringement, Judge Dalton confirmed that this testimony precluded a finding of infringement.

    I do not expect ParkerVision to go ahead with the Appeal. They will surely find a more promising use of the cash.

    ParkerVision went ahead with the first law suit despite knowing from the outset that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion is not powered by energy accumulation, and therefore does not infringe the ParkerVision patents.

    Beware of assigning too much significance to the second law suit.

  • Your -

    "The hedge fund that holds a huge short position and hires the stock bashers for this message board expect Mr. Parker to describe how incredibility terrible the outlook for the company is going into the future."

    - is a complete fabrication. You can't point to a single post which supports any part of that drivel.

    You never got back to me after I suggested you read the Securities Fraud law suit filed against Parker and Sterne.

    The fact you promptly stopped posting here for six days says it all - but why don't you post a few lies about your opinion of the law suit? Practice makes perfect.

INSM
13.21+0.03(+0.23%)Sep 19 4:15 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.