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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 99 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 14, 2015 2:59 PM Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 14, 2015 2:59 PM Flag

    Teamrep - having waded through the first up-conversion patent issued my initial conclusion is that the patented method of up-conversion is independent of ParkerVision's claimed discovery of down-conversion via energy integration.

    The patent does mention energy integration, but (as far as I can tell) only in the context of devices which both up-convert and down-convert.

    My understanding of the Appeal Court's grounds for invalidating ten of the eleven asserted claims of the first law suit is that energy integration is covered by prior art. That would be consistent with McKool's decision to take on the second law suit on a full contingent basis -

    [ JACKSONVILLE, Fla., June 15, 2015 -- ParkerVision, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRKR), a developer, manufacturer and marketer of semiconductor technology solutions for wireless applications, announced today that it has modified its retention agreement with litigation firm McKool Smith for its patent infringement litigation currently underway in the middle district of Florida (ParkerVision Inc V. Qualcomm Inc., et al., 6:14-cv-00687). Under the terms of the amended retention agreement, McKool Smith will handle the ongoing litigation on a full contingent basis. ]

    McKool would have known ever since the trial that the infringement verdict was not one that a reasonable and impartial jury could have returned on the basis of the evidence viewed as a whole.

    They may not have been expecting the Appeal Court to invalidate the down-conversion claims. But they would have known it was almost certain ParkerVision would never earn a solitary cent from the patented method of down-conversion.

    The patented method of up-conversion does not appear to be based upon a groundbreaking concept ParkerVision claims to have discovered. It seems a reasonable inference that the up-conversion patents are far more likely to be invalidated by prior art than were the down-conversion patents.

    Why do you imagine none of this has deterred McKool?

  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 13, 2015 10:15 PM Flag

    Perhaps there's another revenue stream to consider.

    Seriously ill patients can be kept alive almost indefinitely provided the cost of the life support system continues to be met. What if it suits someone to pay the $5 million per quarter required to keep ParkerVision alive?

    Wellington's last reported PRKR holding was 13.6 million shares (14%). Only seven other tutes reported holdings in excess of a million shares, none of which held more than three million.

    Back in 2004 when the PVTV and Cameraman assets were sold Wellington had the largest tute holding (11%).

    One way of looking at this could be that ParkerVision is effectively a subsidiary of an entity with a reported beneficial ownership worth $400 billion. Financial firepower on that scale usually gets its way.

    I suspect the fund managers at Wellington have been able to move the share price wherever it suits them - taking it up to a target level, keeping it there until they've sold a targeted number of shares, then allowing it to drop to just above "bargain basement" level, and keeping it there until the shares have been repurchased.

    If so - the first question to ask is whether or not they can generate over $20 million in annual earnings from doing that.

    All the patient would be required to do is to dream contagious dreams :-)

    We don't have very long to wait now to find out if I've been infected.

  • Reply to

    Longprkr - have you taken legal advice?

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 9, 2015 5:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 12, 2015 1:37 PM Flag

    Teamrep - for clarification, you don't dismiss the possibility that there are investors out there who would have sold their shares for around twenty times the current price were it not for posts by Nubuzzman, Trublvrprkr and Overbrook10 (and probably others) that contained untrue statements of material facts and were therefore unlawful under Rule 10b-5?

  • The fact that one of the claims of the patented method of down-conversion still survives should be viewed with the appropriate perspective.

    ParkerVision started touting the revolutionary breakthrough in down-conversion around seventeen years ago, yet has never managed to convince a single one of the hundred-plus companies approached that down-conversion via discharge of accumulated energy is worth commercialising.

    The excuse WAS competition from Qualcomm products already using the technology. But we now know ParkerVision never had any reason to believe the capacitors in the accused products were being used for anything other than bog-standard prior art filtering of the TX frequencies.

    When the internal circuitry of the TX filter was finally shown to the jury (Page 2001) the game was up. Prucnal was unable to point to any evidence that capacitors generate the baseband signal.

    Jaffee's testimony during Phase 2 of the trial, as far as I can tell, was not challenged by ParkerVision. I'm under the impression that the third question here would be equally relevant to up-conversion.


    Q: At the time of the design of Magellan, what was your intention with respect to the role the capacitors and the TX filter would play in the generation of the baseband?

    A: They play no role.

    Q: And what role, if any, or what plan did you have as far as having the Magellan engage in sampling?

    A: None.

    Q: In the entire design, review, creation project with respect to Magellan, what, if any, discussions took place about the use of energy sampling?

    A: None.


    The claimed improvement on prior art was that energy from the carrier signal could be harnessed to down-convert the baseband signal with unprecedented efficiency.

    Is anybody here clear on what ParkerVision claims to have discovered that would prevent their up-conversion patents being invalidated by prior art?

  • Reply to

    Longprkr - have you taken legal advice?

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 9, 2015 5:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 10, 2015 2:23 PM Flag

    I just wonder if blatant misrepresentation of facts by a number of individuals over a period well in excess of a year could be cited by an entity with deep pockets as sufficient evidence to compel Yahoo to supply the identities of those responsible.

    With regard to the individual who owns the Nubuzzman alias, if he is what he claims it should be easy to identify him -

    [ I ran my own litigation firm for over 50 years, have appeared before the US Supreme Court ]

    [ I was sworn in before the US Supreme Court on Set.5,1975 ]

    However as Bjingles pointed out, it seems unlikely a legal professional would mistake a company calling itself The Patent Board for the USPTO -

    ParkerVision - [ JACKSONVILLE, Fla., July 25, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ParkerVision, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRKR), a developer and marketer of semiconductor technology solutions for wireless applications, announced today it ranked 25th among The Patent Board's top 50 list of telecom and communications industry companies, based on the strength of its intellectual property portfolio. ]

    Nubuzzman - [ They take issue with the validity and legality of the PRKR patents although the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, and the US Patent office have recently indicated otherwise and rated PRKRs patents in the top 50 of all companies ]

  • Reply to

    Longprkr - have you taken legal advice?

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 9, 2015 5:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 10, 2015 11:57 AM Flag

    Teamrep - my understanding is that attorney immunity does not extend to criminal conduct such as fraud and misrepresentation violations of 10b-5.

    This creep claims to have attended the trial and two additional hearings. It seems a reasonable possibility he has sufficient assets to make it worthwhile to sue him.

    If he can be linked to either ParkerVision or one of the law firms it would get really interesting. But my gut feeling is that an individual of sufficient intelligence to have made a living practicing law would have been capable of offering more than just blatant lies.

  • Reply to

    Longprkr - have you taken legal advice?

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 9, 2015 5:22 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 9, 2015 5:32 PM Flag

    Nubuzzman either impersonated a legal professional, or repeatedly deceived you via comments he knew were not supported by the facts.

    January 10 2013 -

    [ Just returned from Orlando where I attended the argument and made the following observations ... I have practiced law, and tried more cases, than Cawley and Hummell combined and neither my opponents nor I have ever referred to lawyers as "liars". ]

    July 15 2014 -

    [ Trub............the legal test, in all case law, is that A JMOL must be denied if "there is any evidence at all". ]

    NB: Complete fabrication.

    November 26 2014 -

    [ I was there at trial, I saw and heard the explanation of how energy sampling works and how Qualcomm's products incorporate energy sampling down-conversion – from evidence not from attorney rhetoric. ]

    [ Well I'm sure of two things as I'm writing 1) Parker is on rock solid grounds on both their legal actions ]

    [ the CAFC will see that the judge has overstepped his role imposing himself as the fact finder, which is clearly the job of the jury, and they will reverse the judge and reinstate the jury verdict. ]

    [ These are the words I heard from Judge Dalton with my own ears at the May 1, 2014, JMOL hearing in Orlando, Florida. ]

    [ Judge Dalton himself asked a hypothetical question at the JMOL hearing. He wondered "if" the down-converter somehow created baseband signals "before" the capacitor in an energy sampler could there be two baseband signals and if so, would ParkerVision's claims still read for infringement? ]

    NB: Complete fabrication. Prucnal confirmed that the baseband signal is created before the capacitors. Dalton simply asked Budwin why that testimony was not "fatal".

    April 9 2015 -

    [ Longparker ... We both know that this case should legally, equitably, and properly be reversed. ]

    July 28 2015 -

    [ By the way, when you next talk to Neal you might ask him who Bonotto, Duffy, Harrington and Maddux are when he was just a kid lawyer and you may get a clue as to my identity..

  • You've always been clear that your PRKR investment was wholly dependent upon information posted by others who attended the trial and/or obtained copies of the transcripts -

    July 16 2013 -

    I've got a lot of money riding on this (at least for me) and, much like OB, I'm not deaf to downsides. I would not stay if I was sitting here worried and hand-wringing. I've simply got too much invested.

    December 31 2013 -

    Tampa cites multiple situations and occurrences that lend great optimism for longs. I'm up 187%, since I got in. Had I listened to you, I would have lost big-time. Everything you said over the past year that would happen DID NOT HAPPEN, and now I'm to believe you? No Fud, I believe Tampa.

    January 28 2014 -

    If anything that I've seen or heard gave me any warning he might rule the "other way" - I'd be gone by now.

    January 29 2014 -

    I have more retirement money coming my way (approx March 2014) ...

    February 15 2014 -

    I am not a "tech-head" within this field. I do, though, have a good friend who knows good investments and with the best of luck, he's led me to invest in Parker Vision. He's never been wrong.


    Have you investigated the possibility of taking legal action under SEC Rule 10b-5?

    [ It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

    ... (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

    ... (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

    ... (c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

    in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. ]

    If Nubuzzman or one of the others who misled you can be linked to ParkerVision ...

  • Reply to

    Longs now blame McKool - anyone but themselves

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 1, 2015 10:59 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 4, 2015 12:58 PM Flag

    The absence of evidence of baseband generation "in the output" of a capacitor always stood out as the obvious reason a "reasonable jury" could not have inferred infringement.

    The closest the Longs ever got to citing evidence meeting that key infringement criterion was -

    1. Tampa:

    [ The energy from the baseband signal -- from the carrier signal is transferred through the switch. It's accumulated by the capacitor. And that energy is then used to generate the baseband signal following the capacitor. ]

    However Tampa knew where "following the capacitor" is. Energy accumulated by capacitors in the TX filter is allegedly "used" (how, exactly?) by transimpedance amplifiers in the Baseband filter to generate the baseband.

    2. Overbrook:

    [ Q: Dr. Prucnal, what here is showing the means for generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy?

    A: It consists of the switch, which closes to transfer energy into the storage device, AND THE STORAGE DEVICE ITSELF THAT IS ACCUMULATING ENERGY AND THEN GENERATING A SIGNAL FROM THAT. ]

    But Overbrook had resorted to the same ploy the Appeal Court rumbled in ParkerVision's Appeal. That statement referred to one of Prucnal's simulations -


    Q: Now, Dr. Prucnal, where do we see the switch circuitry controlled by one or more of the pulse generators?

    A: That's right here. Here's the switch. And here's the control.

    Q: And where do we see one or more of the energy storage circuitry contained in this figure?

    A: The storage capacitance.

    Q: Now, would it help you explain again where we are if we went back to your demonstrative before we look at the evidence?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Can we go to slide 97, please, Mr. Moreno? ... Dr. Prucnal, what here is showing the means for generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy?

    A: It consists of the switch, which closes to transfer energy into the storage device, and the storage device itself that is accumulating energy and then generating a signal from that.

  • Reply to

    What lessons Has Parkervision (PRKR) Taught?

    by teamrep Aug 2, 2015 3:54 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 3, 2015 9:24 AM Flag

    "PRKR taught valuable lessons in the vagaries, limitations and exploitable nature of the US patent system, legal system, and stock market."

    More of a refresher course in the last of those Teamrep. The essence of investment is the expectation of financial gain - but it has always provided a market place for dreams.

    Irrespective of whether or not ParkerVision can realistically be expected to develop sales to a point where it can become profitable, the Appeal Court decision doesn't change the fact that potentially enforceable patents are the stuff of which dreams are made..

    One suspects that for the historically profitable PRKR it will be business as usual until all of the patents have been invalidated.

    New dreamers will see the failure of the first law suit in the same way as the latest batch of disappointed dreamers saw the failure of D2D commercialization - as an opportunity to buy shares for a fraction of the price they will be worth should ParkerVision succeed in enforcing its patents.

    Although I consistently argued since the trial that the Infringement verdict SHOULD be overturned, I don't believe I've warranted a place in the list of those named by States as deserving of credit for actually predicting the Appeal Court decision.

    However those tempted to bet money on PRKR now spiraling into Pink Sheet oblivion might be interested in a prediction I did make on July 8 -

    "Fwiw - doubtless the share price will drop to some degree following the news. But I imagine only a few small retail holders can be harboring the realistic expectation that the Appeal will succeed - which suggests to me that the price will quickly rebound to the present level or higher."

    July 8 closing price: $0.37

    By 14:35 on Friday the share price was (briefly) back up to $0.37.

  • Reply to

    Longs now blame McKool - anyone but themselves

    by fud.fighter2 Aug 1, 2015 10:59 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Aug 1, 2015 11:42 AM Flag

    Prucnal's the one who should now sue ParkerVision.

    His admission that the simulations he'd conducted for his Expert Report didn't incorporate a double balanced mixer, and did incorporate a resistor not present in any accused product suggest what probably happened there.

    ParkerVision probably got Prucnal on board by withholding from him that they'd known all along - even from the three-page paper which allegedly first aroused their suspicions of infringement - that the capacitors in the Qualcomm circuit were simply performing bog-standard prior art filtering of the TX frequencies.

    We know this must be true, because if ParkerVision HAD identified a difference they'd have simply shown the jury a slide with the Qualcomm TX filter and a prior art TX filter side by side - and pointed out the proof that the Qualcomm capacitors generate the baseband signal.

    What did Prucnal do when Page 2001 (the internal TX filter circuitry) was finally displayed in Court?

    Not a single word about baseband generation. He just said "Look at all those capacitors!"

  • ParkerVision patented a very specific embodiment of the "energy transfer" concept - whereby a storage device generates the baseband signal from accumulated energy.

    Sorrells confirmed that his invention entails the baseband signal being generated "in the output" of a capacitor.

    Yet never at any point did ParkerVision have reason to believe Qualcomm had been doing that.

    ParkerVision argued on Appeal -

    [ Qualcomm's counsel asked Dr. Prucnal to confirm that a baseband signal was present at the points labeled BBOP and BBOM, which he did.

    But Dr. Prucnal also testified that "the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor" as well. ]

    However this was a blatant lie, and the Appeal Court picked up on it -


    Q: You didn't include a double balanced mixer in your simulation, correct?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And we've already established, looking at PX-847, that the crisscrossing in the Qualcomm design creates a lower frequency signal, correct?

    A: Crisscrossing itself doesn't create the lower frequency signal. It's one of the patents that leads to the lower frequency signal.

    Q: But in the Qualcomm circuit, a lower frequency baseband signal has been created. And can you point to the places where the baseband signal is? Basically, I just want you to show what corresponds to what you were pointing to on PX-847.

    A: Sure. So the baseband path is shown here on the top, I believe this is baseband P. And the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor.


    [ On appeal, ParkerVision relies heavily on a statement made by Dr. Prucnal during cross-examination that "the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is created after the capacitor resistor."

    That statement does not support ParkerVision's infringement argument, however, because the statement referred to Dr. Prucnal's simulation (which did not contain a double balanced mixer), not to Qualcomm's accused circuit. ]

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip Jul 31, 2015 11:32 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 2:50 PM Flag

    Overbrook - I considered that possibility every time somebody posted that he/she "believed" substantial evidence existed to support a verdict of infringement.

    But when I asked you a dead simple question -


    Where in the evidence record is the testimony that leads you to believe the baseband signal is generated "in the output" of a capacitor?


    - and you not only refused to offer an honest answer, but tried to compensate for your earlier admission -

    [ 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. ]

    - by resorting to the pathetic lie that Prucnal had repeatedly offered that testimony to Neal - everyone here knew you were a liar.

    Furthermore, someone with the legal experience you claim to have wouldn't have had the slightest problem in answering the following question IF he'd been telling the truth -


    Which of the following do you believe?

    {a) ParkerVision matched

    the energy integration step of the patented method of down-conversion


    an energy integration step in the Qualcomm method of down-conversion


    (b) ParkerVision met the "exact" match criterion of Direct Infringement even though the match described in (a) didn't happen


    (c) ParkerVision supplied "substantial" evidence of Infringement even though the exact match criterion of Direct Infringement was not met.


    As I've already pointed out to you, being caught lying isn't something you can lie your way out of.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 1:38 PM Flag

    The dogged refusal of the pumpers to acknowledge the reality of the evidence presented has consistently been PAR for the course.

    There was never any dispute it would come down to how a "reasonable jury" might have interpreted the evidence.

    However, the Parkervision Alternate Reality definition of "reasonable" is a lot different to the Appeal Court definition.

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip Jul 31, 2015 11:32 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 1:22 PM Flag

    Btw - inconsiderate timing on the part of the Appeal Court. Today's trades will have August settlement dates, so we won't get an idea of how much of the 12 million share Short position was covered today until the mid-August position is released on August 25.

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip Jul 31, 2015 11:32 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 1:04 PM Flag

    I wonder if any of the pumpers are intelligent enough to now be wondering if they're paying the price for all those lies they told about substantial evidence of infringement.

    Had they not spent so much time feigning confidence that the Infringement verdict would be reinstated because "Judge Dalton got it wrong" - perhaps today's news wouldn't have surprised as many shareholders as it has, and the sell-off wouldn't have dropped the share price as low as it has.

    Those cheap shots along the lines of "Several Longs have posted the evidence - I'm not going to waste my time posting it again" may have been an expensive luxury.

    Having said that - I expect its the usual suspects who have hoovering up the shares sold today, and will now walk the share price back up over a dollar.

    Since when has the share price been justified by the fundamentals of the business?

  • Reply to

    So Invalidity WAS the focus after all

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 11:20 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 11:31 AM Flag

    Just the sort of comment I'd expect from a basher like you States - closing your eyes to the fact that the Appeal Court judges ignored the evidence and protected big business.

  • If I'm understanding this correctly, the Appeal Court has overruled Judge Dalton and invalidated ten of the eleven asserted patent claims (out of the four patents involved).

  • Reply to

    it's happening!

    by worthless_stock_specialist Jul 31, 2015 9:40 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 31, 2015 10:20 AM Flag

    Is it an assumption this is to do with the Appeal rather than with the IPR?

  • 1. "Here's my explanation: The switches create a baseband frequency, but not a demodulated baseband as specified in the patents. Without the caps influence, what comes out of the switches is a harmonically rich, very broadband multitone set of frequencies, one of them around the baseband frequency. Without the capacitor, the gain and NF are much worse. The cap turns current at the other frequencies into baseband current, improving performance and generating, over samples, a nice demodulated baseband waveform with much much less high frequency content."

    2. "Another explanation, assuming the influence of the downstream cap/load within the mixer (ie circuit theory), is that the capacitor/load dynamic impedance will only pull baseband out of the switches. Therefore baseband current does exist in the switches before hitting the cap."

    Tampa's fellow Longs should hope that none of his explanations and theories of operation have ever occurred to the Appeal Court judges.

    Every single one of the countless arguments he has posted in recent years based upon a capacitor "pulling" the baseband signal through the switches - and therefore generating the baseband signal - applies equally to prior art filtering of the TX frequencies.

    Without evidence that instead of having NO effect upon the baseband frequency, a capacitor actually generates it - Tampa has repeatedly argued Invalidity.

    Prucnal matched the energy integration step to capacitors in the TX filter by offering the following (prior art) testimony in relation to Page 1999, a schematic of the mixer block -


    Q: Now, where do you see the means for integrating the energy over the aperture periods?

    A: I think the output of the mixer are capacitors tied to the output lines here and here.


    However when the internal circuitry of the TX filter was finally shown to the jury (Page 2001) Prucnal was unable to point to ANY evidence of baseband generation by a capacitor.

16.82-0.61(-3.50%)Oct 13 4:00 PMEDT