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?
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)."
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".
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?"
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.
"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.
Feeling empathy for the plight of others is an admirable quality - I somehow doubt many of the investors with Short positions are feeling sorry for you. But I wonder if they know a lot more than you do.
You might consider searching for "ParkerVision securities fraud" and reading the complaint filed in New Jersey (a subsequent ruling moved the trial, when it takes place, to Florida).
I'd be interested to hear your opinion after you've read that.
Teamrep, thanks for pointing out that the function of a mixer in a receiver is demodulation - the generation of a baseband signal from a modulated carrier signal (aka down-conversion).
In his JMOL of Non-infringement, Judge Dalton cited testimony confirming that down-conversion occurs in the mixer -
[ Dr. Prucnal's testimony on cross-examination was unequivocal that the double balanced mixers create the baseband before the lower frequency signal reaches the capacitors in the TX filter:
So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixture [sic] 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?
Dr. Prucnal further testified that the "output" of the double balanced mixers in the accused products "is the baseband."
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). ]
Prucnal's "unequivocal" testimony that the baseband signal exits the mixer and enters the TX filter capacitor was echoed by a ParkerVision attorney in a question he put to another witness -
[ Budwin: "the baseband signal goes into the capacitor and doesn't fly by it".
Rezavi: "Yes." ]
The undisputed testimony regarding the point at which down-conversion occurs actually sinks both the case ParkerVision presented in Court and the "second baseband" theory.
1. There was zero evidence that the down-conversion in the mixer involves the signature "energy integration" step of the method of down-conversion Qualcomm was accused of infringing.
2. There was zero evidence that anything other than the baseband enters the TX filter capacitor.
Testimony that the capacitor "generates" the baseband is of no value without evidence that it does so during down-conversion (which requires a modulated carrier signal).
Overbrook, re your -
"Prucnal testified that the baseband was generated after the capacitor- that is enough to get it past a motion"
- under cross-examination Prucnal admitted that the baseband is created before the capacitor. Did Prucnal or any other witness say anything which might have caused a "reasonable juror" to suspect that the generation of the baseband after the capacitor occurs during down-conversion?
Why don't you explain why a "reasonable juror" might have accepted that particular testimony as evidence of infringement of a method of down-conversion?
I suggest you go to the ParkerVision site, access the SEC filing for the recent presentation, and understand what Prucnal actually testified.
"Yes, the mixer creates the baseband. But it doesn't generate it".
I suspect the case ends here unless ParkerVision can find something they can argue was a procedural error.
The use of a carrier signal to carry a baseband signal is achieved by distortion of the carrier signal.
The baseband signal is no more present in the distorted carrier signal than are a set of teeth in a dental impression.
The indentations are used to produce a replica of the teeth. The distortion of the carrier signal is used to create a replica of the original baseband signal.
The original distortion (modulation) of the carrier signal by the baseband is called up-conversion. The demodulation which replicates the baseband is called down-conversion.
ParkerVision accused Qualcomm of infringement of a patented method of demodulation -
[ A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal, comprising the steps of:
(1) receiving a carrier signal ...
(2) sampling the carrier signal over aperture periods to transfer energy from the carrier signal at an aliasing rate, the aliasing rate determined according to a frequency of the carrier signal divided by N, wherein N indicates a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier signal;
(3) integrating the energy over the aperture periods; and
(4) generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy. ]
ParkerVision's Dr.Prucnal admitted that the baseband signal is created earlier in Q's circuit than the capacitor he claimed performs Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method.
Nobody at any point claimed that Q's method of down-conversion includes energy integration.
Judge Dalton therefore granted a JMOL of Non-infringement as there was no "sufficient evidentiary basis" for a verdict of infringement by a "reasonable jury".
ParkerVision's sole argument for a sufficient evidentiary basis depends upon Prucnal having testified that although the baseband is created by the mixer, it is not "generated" until the capacitor.
Somebody PLEASE buy these people a dictionary.
In any event - it's futile to argue that the accused products meet the "generating" limitation without evidence they do so during down-conversion.
Tampa, your -
"If you weren't in the courtroom, or part of the legal team, you can't say evidence wasn't presented because you don't know what was or wasn't presented."
- is perfectly correct. But those of us who did not attend the trial had the benefit of firsthand accounts posted on this board by people who did - Urspond and yourself.
Nothing either of you posted so much as hinted at evidence which placed generation of the baseband signal from integrated energy as PART of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.
Your notes referred to Prucnal's demonstration that integration of energy by the TX filter capacitor, and generation of the baseband by said capacitor, satisfied Steps 3 and four of the ParkerVision method of down-conversion. But nothing in your notes mentioned evidence that this occurred during down-conversion in the accused products.
Under the subsequent cross-examination Prucnal was forced to admit that those TX filter capacitor processes occur after down-conversion.
Even the ParkerVision attorney acknowledged that those processes occur after down-conversion -
Budwin: "the baseband signal goes into the capacitor and doesn't fly by it".
I've challenged you personally on numerous occasions to cite evidence which placed generation of the baseband signal from integrated energy as part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion. You were never able to.
And don't you think that if anybody HAD supplied the crucial missing link, ParkerVision would have highlighted the evidence in yesterday's presentation - instead of merely regurgitating the argument that the accused products met the "generating" limitations?
Are you still expecting ParkerVision to go to the Appeal Court with the argument that a "reasonable juror" might have found for infringement - even though nobody at any stage claimed that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion included the energy integration and generation steps of the ParkerVision method of down-conversion?
The signature steps of ParkerVision's patented "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal" are -
(3) integrating the energy over the aperture periods; and
(4) generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy.
The ParkerVision expert witnesses testified that there is no infringement unless the baseband signal is generated from energy integrated via a storage device -
Q: "And in order to have energy transfer as defined in every one of the claims at issue in this case, you need to have current from the carrier signal flow into the storage device, correct?"
Q: "And then the energy -- then the current from the carrier signal, which is flowed into the storage device, is then used to generate the baseband, correct?"
Judge Dalton's JMOL of Non-infringement acknowledged the fundamental flaw in the ParkerVision case -
Prucnal testified that capacitors in the accused products integrate energy and generate the baseband signal. But he did not testify that those processes were part of the method by which the accused products down-convert from carrier signal to baseband signal.
Judge Dalton pointed out in his JMOL -
[ Dr. Prucnal's testimony on cross-examination was unequivocal that the double balanced mixers create the baseband before the lower frequency signal reaches the capacitors in the TX filter: ]
[ Dr. Prucnal further testified that the "output" of the double balanced mixers in the accused products "is the baseband." ]
Note carefully that even if a "reasonable juror" chose to ignore Prucnal's "plain testimony" - neither Prucnal, nor Sorrells, nor any other witness at any stage claimed that generation of the baseband from integrated energy was PART of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion to baseband.
The jurors assumed it was from the manner in which Prucnal presented his initial testimony. A "reasonable juror" would never return a verdict of infringement based entirely on an assumption.