Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 118 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Feb 25, 2015 7:49 PM Flag

    Re your -

    [ I disagree that "Prucnal matched the key steps of the patented method of down-conversion to processes undisputedly not part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion". I think that is disputed in the testimony several times! ]

    - once again, what you "think" is irrelevant.

    Equally irrelevant is your tedious bloviation concerning circuit operation.

    The vastly simplified, one-way sequence of events you heard ParkerVision outline in the Courtroom (so that the patented method of down-conversion could be matched to the accused products convincingly for jurors with little knowledge of electrical engineering) is all that matters now.

    Given the simplicity of the portrayal in the evidence record it seems highly unlikely a judge could misunderstand "several" bits a jury would understand as placing energy integration and baseband "generation" (from integrated energy) as part of the method of down-conversion in the accused products.

    Certainly ParkerVision's expert witness never disputed his own testimony. He was adamant that the component which down-converts the baseband signal does not generate it - and admitted that even if the energy integration component he claimed does generate it was ripped out, the baseband signal would still be down-converted.

    Therefore the expert witness clearly and consistently testified that the method of down-conversion in the accused products is independent of energy integration and baseband generation.

    Apart from his testimony there were only opinions of people on ParkerVision's payroll that the accused products infringe - none of whom claimed to have access to the confidential information the expert witness confirmed was necessary to "reach a properly informed and useful opinion".

    Sadly for PRKR investors the only truth in your assertion lies in the exclamation mark at the end. It tells them there is zero evidence for the Appeal Court judges to find which could "properly" have supported a verdict of infringement.

  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Feb 26, 2015 9:25 AM Flag

    Re your -

    1. "He obviously struggled to answer that yes/no because of the broad interpretation that could be made void any conditions."

    If it was indeed obvious, you wouldn't be struggling to post that particular extract from the transcript.

    2. "Even interpreting it QC's way as testimony that the baseband is created independent of the cap, there is PV testimony that baseband is created by the circuit operating in an infringing manner."

    "PV testimony"? Don't tell us you're also struggling to back up your claim that Prucnal's testimony was "disputed" several times?

    Nothing said by any witness placed energy integration as a "step" in the method by which the accused products down-convert the baseband signal. Just tell us what YOU believe could cause the Appeal Court judges to conclude that ParkerVision -

    "showed that the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result"?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Feb 27, 2015 9:09 AM Flag

    Trublvrprkr, re your -

    "Why, do you suppose, did Qualcomm choose to pursue invalidity before a jury of laymen ..."

    - doubtless Qualcomm anticipated (correctly) that ParkerVision would be unable to provide evidence that Qualcomm's method of down-conversion includes the key energy integration and baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion.

    With no case to answer - had Qualcomm not asserted invalidity there would have been no opportunity to convince the jurors, in case they got it wrong, that any infringement was not wilful (as Qualcomm had good reason to consider the patents invalid).

    Given that the jury did indeed get it wrong - but nevertheless concluded (as did Judge Dalton) that there was strong evidence of invalidity - it seems Qualcomm read the situation beautifully.

  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Feb 27, 2015 12:22 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "I buy QC's arrogance, but not their confidence on infringement. This is clear in their diversionary trial strategy of; we can't infringe because our circuit looks like, is labeled like, and sounds like old non-infringing technology. If they were so confident ..."

    - there's no "if" about it.

    Do you deny they were so confident that the testimony of ParkerVision's expert witness pointed clearly and consistently to NON-infringement that they didn't bother to call a single witness of their own?

    The truth is - it simply doesn't GET any more confident than a defendant not bothering to offer a defense :-)

    Which begs the question - when are you claiming Qualcomm actually used your "diversionary trial strategy of; we can't infringe because our circuit looks like, is labeled like, and sounds like old non-infringing technology"?

    It certainly wasn't during the Validity phase of the trial. That phase had no bearing on how the Qualcomm products operate - only on whether or not ParkerVision's patents are invalidated by prior art.

    And as I've just reminded you - because ParkerVision failed to supply evidence which could "properly" have supported a verdict of infringement, Qualcomm didn't need to put witnesses of their own on the stand during the Infringement phase.

    Kindly explain how this imaginary "diversionary trial strategy" managed to divert anything - given ParkerVision brought into the Courtroom a Qualcomm schematic depicting a mixer with baseband outputs to a TX filter - and never disputed the accuracy of the schematic they chose to use?

  • Do you deny that you post both as wallstrip and as tampa2013?

    Are you hoping your arguments supporting ParkerVision's case will appear more credible if it seems somebody else here sees merit in them?

    Or is it simply a means of continuing to post without arousing suspicion, when offering an honest response to a question addressed to a particular id doesn't suit your agenda?

  • Reply to

    Qcomm Appeal brief was due Fri

    by tampa2013 Mar 2, 2015 12:49 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 2, 2015 3:26 PM Flag

    Possibly - just seven trading days ago the share price was 20% higher than today's low.

  • Re your -

    "This whole baseband before or excluding the storage capacitor is a QC diversion away from the testimony from which the jury based their infringement verdict."

    - the "testimony from which the jury based their infringement verdict" is the same testimony from which the judge based the JMOL of Non-infringement, is it not?

    [ Dr. Prucnal's testimony 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. ]

    Your dismissal of Judge Dalton's "crucial issue" as a mere "diversion" suggests that all this time you have been blissfully unaware of the major problem ParkerVision needs to overcome. Of what use is a patent unless it can be enforced?

    You have been unable to provide any evidence placing energy integration as a step in the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.

    ParkerVision's expert witness Dr. Prucnal clearly and consistently testified that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion is independent of the key 'generation from integrated energy' step of ParkerVision's patented method of down-conversion.

    Claiming that energy integration is a step in a method of down-conversion is easy. But unless ParkerVision can somehow establish that the energy integration occurs before the baseband signal is down-converted - how could any juror ever reasonably conclude that the energy integration is a step in the method by which the baseband signal is down-converted, rather than an independent process occurring simultaneously?

    Simple question: If somebody manufactured an identical copy of one of the products ParkerVision made containing D2D, can you suggest a way ParkerVision could prove that energy integration is a step in the method of down-conversion in that product?

    If the patents cannot be shown to cover what ParkerVision actually made, of what value are they realistically?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - you're missing the important point

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 4, 2015 9:09 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 4, 2015 5:24 PM Flag

    In other words ..... you CAN'T suggest a way of demonstrating that ParkerVision's patents cover D2D as marketed by ParkerVision.

    And we both know why. Even in D2D the baseband signal is down-converted before it hits the capacitor within which energy must first be integrated during an aperture period before a baseband signal can be "generated" from integrated energy.

    Therefore the "generation" must be separated in time from the down-conversion by at least one aperture period.

    You made the mistake of admitting that fact.

    When I suggested to Overbrook -

    [ Why don't you ask Tampa or Trub if the "balanced pair" in D2D down-converts to baseband before the baseband hits the "energy storage device" ]

    you volunteered (on November 27) -

    [ To answer your question, yes! The baseband is available at the circuit node after the switches AND before the cap. ]

    That's why the patents are unenforceable.

    ParkerVision has no way of ever proving to a jury that the capacitor is not simply generating a baseband signal from energy accumulated from the baseband signal you admit is already present before the capacitor (therefore not a step in the method of DOWN-conversion).

  • Your various portrayals of circuit operation are of no relevance to the Appeal - which must be restricted to interpretation of the specific argument upon which the jury's infringement verdict was based.

    ParkerVision portrayed the circuit operation as a simple, one-way sequence of events. That portrayal was cemented in the minds of the jurors by ParkerVision's closing argument -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer. .11 go out and into the TX filter, where it's undisputed there are capacitors. And .11 comes out of the TX filter, the capacitors, to form the baseband signal. This proves that the baseband is generated from energy transferred into this storage device. ]

    The closing argument will obviously carry a lot of weight in the Appeal - as will the absence of testimony that said "generation" is part of the method by which the mixer down-converts the baseband signal "before it hits" the TX filter.

    In fact the Appeal Court judges will discover that ParkerVision's expert witness clearly and consistently testified that baseband generation from integrated energy is not a step in the method by which the accused products down-convert the baseband signal.

    So .....

    1. Given the uncontradicted expert testimony that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion specifically EXCLUDES the all-important step of the patented method of down-conversion - how might the Appeal Court judges reasonably conclude that the accused products perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result?

    2. As you freely admit that even in the ParkerVision embodiment of the patented method of down-conversion the baseband is "available at the circuit node after the switches AND before the capacitor" - how might ParkerVision go about convincing a juror that the capacitor processes linking the baseband before the capacitor to the baseband after the capacitor are steps in a method of DOWN-conversion?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - in words a juror would understand?

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 5, 2015 3:46 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 8, 2015 10:33 AM Flag

    As you'd rather not answer the questions above I'll try one entirely within your area of expertise.

    From what I've read (please correct any misunderstanding on my part) -

    1. ParkerVision alleges infringement of its patented method of down-conversion.

    2. Up-conversion is the process by which a baseband signal is converted into changes in a carrier signal (modulation).

    3. Down-conversion is the process by which a baseband signal is recreated from a modulated carrier signal.

    4. ParkerVision emphasised in its closing argument that it had proved that the baseband signal is generated from energy transferred into a storage device in the TX filter - which receives 0.11 microamps from the mixer.

    5. A mixer down-converts a baseband signal by mixing a modulated carrier signal with a local oscillator signal.
    .
    6. ParkerVision's lead inventor testified that the term "mixer" is a label for function that does down-conversion.

    7. ParkerVision's expert witness confirmed that the Qualcomm mixer does indeed down-convert the baseband signal.

    What persuades YOU that the mixing of the two signals is powered by energy accumulated from the 0.11 microamps going into the TX filter - rather than by energy from the 0.25 microamps going into the mixer?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - in words a juror would understand?

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 5, 2015 3:46 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 9, 2015 12:09 PM Flag

    Tampa, you can't even answer this simple question honestly? -

    What persuades YOU that the mixing of the two signals is powered by energy accumulated from the 0.11 microamps going into the TX filter - rather than by energy from the 0.25 microamps going into the mixer?

    You must be really desperate if all you can offer us is the fluffy pink Tampa Reality that the Appeal Court judges will view the mixer and the TX filter as a single component -

    "Don't separate the parts or use before or after and we're good ... the place both PV and QC would place a probe to measure for baseband is the same place because the mixer and capacitor share the same output."

    The truth is that ParkerVision consistently separated the two components. The Appeal Court judges must consider the evidence upon which the infringement verdict was based -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer. .11 go out and into the TX filter ... ]

    [ Dr.Prucnal then pointed to capacitors after the mixers that collect the sampled energy ... ]

    [ Dr.Prucnal concluded that the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter." ]

    [ Q: In order for the jury, then, to conclude or determine whether you have established infringement or not, the jury has to consider whether the accused products, the Qualcomm accused products make the baseband signal from energy in the capacitor, correct? A: I believe so, yes, sir. ]

    [ Q: If the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe your patents, correct? A: I believe that's correct. ]

    [ 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? A: Yes. ]

    Where's the evidence that the mixer is "getting the baseband signal" from energy stored in the TX filter capacitor?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - in words a juror would understand?

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 5, 2015 3:46 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 10, 2015 3:27 PM Flag

    Not good Tampa. You want investors to believe your superior grasp of electrical engineering to that of Judge Dalton enables you to understand why the accused products infringe where he could not.

    Yet when I suggest the only reasonable conclusion of ParkerVision's closing argument is that the Qualcomm mixer is using 0.14 of its 0.25 microamps to mix the modulated carrier signal with a local oscillator signal - so down-converting the baseband signal independently of energy accumulated in the TX filter capacitor from the 0.11 microamps it receives from the mixer - you have no answer.

    Let's try for the record - FOUR consecutive questions you'd prefer not to answer honestly.

    Your explanation of why the Qualcomm mixer cannot down-convert the baseband signal independently of the TX filter is -

    [ I'm not aware of any testimony supporting that the QC mixer subcircuit performs the electrical function of mixing. The QC "mixer" subcircuit has 2 outputs. A single ended traditional dbl bal mixer would only have one. If it's a differential configuration of a dbl bal mixer, it should have 8 switches in order to have a differential x2 output. ]

    However the evidence record includes the following testimony from ParkerVision's lead inventor -

    Q: How many double balanced transistor pairs does Qualcomm use in its circuitry?

    A: Can you put that -- to be able to answer accurately -- well, I believe -- can you give me a second. I have to think of the picture. There's two sets of differential switches for I and Q. So that would be two pairs for I and two pairs -- two pairs of balanced pairs for I, and two for Q.

    Q: So how many total?

    A: For I and Q, that would be eight. I'm sorry. Four transistor pairs, eight transistors.

    What led you to believe the Qualcomm mixer doesn't have the eight switches (transistors) Sorrells counted - and ParkerVision's independent expert witness Dr.Prucnal must also have seen in order to confirm it as a double-balanced mixer?

  • Even somebody with a woefully limited grasp of electrical engineering such as myself can appreciate the holes in ParkerVision's story.

    My understanding is that the original up-conversion process converts the information stream (baseband) into fluctuations in a carrier signal.

    The phone's aerial converts the information stream from fluctuations in a carrier signal into fluctuations in an electric current.

    My "reasonable juror" view is that when a capacitor converts a current into stored energy, any fluctuations representing an information stream must cease to exist.

    I don't recall ParkerVision suggesting how the information stream could be preserved during the storage phase.

    Therefore the energy accumulation in the TX filter capacitor cannot be a step in the method by which the mixer down-converts the baseband signal - unless the down-conversion in the mixer is powered by the energy stored in the TX filter capacitor.

    If that was indeed what ParkerVision wanted the jurors to believe - when the independent expert witness was prompted to opine on what would happen if the TX filter was "ripped out", he would have stated categorically that the mixer he had already CONFIRMED down-converts the baseband signal "before it hits" the TX filter would no longer be able to do so.

    But he said nothing of the sort.

    As there isn't a scrap of evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes that all-important energy accumulation step, Judge Dalton was correct in ruling that the evidence ParkerVision did provide fell short of "properly" supporting a verdict of infringement of the patented method of down-conversion.

    The Doctrine of Equivalents required ParkerVision to demonstrate that the accused products perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Nobody could reasonably argue that ParkerVision did so.

  • Reply to

    Tampa - in words a juror would understand?

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 5, 2015 3:46 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 12, 2015 1:20 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "We'll never know why Prucnal answered "the admission" the way he did ..."

    - it's commonly referred to as answering a question "truthfully".

    Prucnal consistently testified that the mixer down-converts the baseband signal "before it hits" the TX filter - but that the baseband signal cannot be "generated" until energy has been integrated by the capacitor within the TX filter.

    ParkerVision's closing argument was a final reminder to the jury of Prucnal's testimony -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer. .11 go out and into the TX filter, where it's undisputed there are capacitors. And .11 comes out of the TX filter, the capacitors, to form the baseband signal. This proves that the baseband is generated from energy transferred into this storage device. ]

    However despite being prompted by the ParkerVision attorney to do so, Prucnal refused to claim that the mixer would be unable to down-convert the baseband signal if the TX filter was "ripped out".

    Sorrells had previously confirmed the significance of that 'energy integration' step of the patented method of down-conversion -

    [ Q: In order for the jury, then, to conclude or determine whether you have established infringement or not, the jury has to consider whether the accused products, the Qualcomm accused products make the baseband signal from energy in the capacitor, correct? A: I believe so, yes, sir. ]

    [ Q: If the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe your patents, correct? A: I believe that's correct. ]

    Let's try for a FIFTH consecutive question it doesn't suit your agenda to answer "truthfully" -

    Can you show us any evidence that the mixer does indeed "get the baseband signal" from "the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor"?

  • Burying one's head in the sand is a poor investment strategy.

    Re your -

    "Again, it seems plain to me that no one has a clue which way the verdict will go."

    - while nobody can see into the future, there are in fact plenty of clues as to which way the verdict will go.

    1. The allegedly novel step of ParkerVision's patented "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal" is -

    "generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy".

    2. ParkerVision's lead inventor Sorrells confirmed the significance of that step -

    Q: If the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe your patents, correct?

    A: I believe that's correct.

    3. Under the Doctrine of Equivalents, the patentee is required to -

    show that the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result.

    4. ParkerVision's independent expert witness Dr.Prucnal consistently testified that the accused products down-convert the baseband signal independently of the alleged energy integration in the TX filter capacitor -

    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?

    A: Yes.

    5. ParkerVision's most dedicated pumper tampa2013, who actually attended the proceedings, doesn't want to answer this crucial question -

    Can you show us any evidence that the mixer does indeed "get the baseband signal" from "the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor"?

  • Reply to

    Fuzzie8 - none so blind as those who won't see

    by fud.fighter2 Mar 13, 2015 12:43 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 13, 2015 3:45 PM Flag

    Speedlake - a word of advice:

    It's perfectly obvious to anybody with a modicum of intelligence that if you actually believed what you posted earlier -

    " Yet, I still understand that all the posts here(especially my own) have no influence over the share price."

    - you wouldn't have felt it necessary to apply damage limitation with regard to Tampa's reluctance to answer a simple question everybody here appreciates is highly relevant in gauging the likelihood of the Appeal succeeding.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 15, 2015 2:07 PM Flag

    For both businesses I'm expecting it to be "business as usual".

    With regard to ParkerVision I'm not expecting any meaningful developments.

    With regard to PRKR I'm expecting the price to rise to at least $1.10 - earning the investors who allowed it to drop to the current level a quick profit of 25% on the shares they've bought.

    The 25% increase in the share price will also be proof that the market believes the guidance Jeff provides tomorrow concerning the ParkerVision business.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 16, 2015 12:04 AM Flag

    Looks like the concept of honesty is about as foreign to you as it is to Tampa.

    You'll continue to blunder through life perpetually enshrouded in a myopic fog unless you accept that not everybody is obsessed with furthering their financial interests.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 16, 2015 6:29 PM Flag

    If an expert opinion unsupported by factual evidence of infringement did indeed constitute a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for an infringement verdict, there could never be a JMOL in a patent infringement case.

    Worse still - in this case Prucnal's expert testimony consistently pointed to NON-infringement, and was neither contradicted nor disputed.

    Mformation vs RIM provides an appropriate precedent -

    [ In sum, the Court finds that Mformation failed to establish that RIM infringes Claim 1 of the '917 Patent, insofar as the evidence shows that RIM's accused products do not practice the '917 Patent.

    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. ]

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Mar 17, 2015 10:53 AM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "There's far more testimony in support of infringement than against."

    - the opinions of Prucnal and others on ParkerVision's payroll that the accused products infringe are not supported by Prucnal's expert testimony, which consistently points to Non-infringement.

    Sorrells testified as follows -

    Q: If the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe your patents, correct?

    A: I believe that's correct.

    The Appeal Court ruling in PharmaStem v ViaCell provides a clear precedent -

    "Where a party's expert offers legal conclusions on an ultimate issue, judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate when the expert's opinion cannot be reconciled with either the language of the claims at issue or the evidence presented at trial."

    Why don't you reconcile those opinions of infringement with the expert testimony you actually heard while you were in Court - by showing us SOME evidence that the mixer Prucnal confirmed down-converts the baseband signal "before it hits" the TX filter does nevertheless get the baseband signal from carrier signal energy that has been stored in the TX filter capacitor?

INSM
22.61-0.15(-0.66%)May 22 4:00 PMEDT