Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

longprkr 44 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 11, 2015 1:05 PM Member since: Nov 28, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • continued from post earlier (Yahoo Board is predictably acting up and not taking this)

    C) Parker Vision asked the court to compel Samsung to turn over details of their newly introduced Samsung cell phone chips that are now shipping into the US (S6 Samsung phones). These are not Qualcomm chips. and have nothing to do with Case number 1. This gives Parker Vision an entirely new path of infringement to pursue that is completely disconnected from Qualcomm. I do not see Qualcomm and Samsung's interest aligned and this is in Parker Vision's favor. Parker Vision can now easily prove that the nonsense about the use of "prior art double balanced mixers"is nothing more than attorney slight of hand. I predict Qualcomm will stay as far away from Parker Visions pursuit of Samsung's chips as possible, so as not to open up Pandora's box on their own products.

    This is a huge advantage for Parker Vision. Especially with that 1 patent claim now affirmed by all the different parties as mentioned above.

    CONCLUSION--Case Two goes on. With Samsung making their own chips, Parker Vision has 2 rather than 1 infringing chip companies which spreads the risk in Parker Vision’s favor.

    Yes, I’ll stay around OB. No sense to get out now. But have no wish to post or monitor the Board. Can't stand it.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • longprkr by longprkr Aug 11, 2015 12:02 PM Flag

    Why would I hang around to here the crowing? I won't be back until the 2nd case finishes. I can't stand the duplicity of the bashers. Hiding behind digital curtains. Not for me OB.

    My understanding of where Parker Vision goes from here:

    Many assess Parker Vision's newest case against Qualcomm, Samsung and HTC (second case) is totally DISCONNECTED from the first case and will move right along unimpeded. Litigators McCool Smith must have already completed the analysis on the "If we lose case number 1" and took case two on full contingency.
    Here are opinions I’m receiving: While I won't be surprised if Qualcomm tries to use the first case to somehow effect the second case here are the facts:

    A) One patent claim from the first case has now been ruled as not invalid by the a) US PATENT OFFICE, B) US PATENT BOARD (IPR), C) DISTRICT COURT JURY TRIAL, D) and The US COURT OF APPEALS (CAFC)
    While the result of the CAFC's decision on the other aspects was terribly disappointing (and wrong!) you only need 1 valid claim to prevail, and this one claim tells us that “yes” Parker Vision has a real invention. ParkerVision has always said their downconverter technology requires discharge between samples and this is one of the reasons Parker Vision's technology is so unique and works so well. Contrary to the Court it is exactly what Qualcomm does.

    B) The Qualcomm 2nd case is related to other technologies than in the first case. Transmitter technology, baseband technology, Protocol converter technology.

    To be continued.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - what you post defines what you are

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 29, 2015 12:23 AM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 29, 2015 9:26 PM Flag

    And now we're left saying, "They didn't say anything, not one word." Bad, really bad Fuddy.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - what you post defines what you are

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 29, 2015 12:23 AM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 29, 2015 6:38 AM Flag

    Your posts - more and more - become too obvious you're paid to post. You've lost the skill to deceive and now become overt.

  • nubuzzman, this is on target:
    The ultimate legal issue in the appeal
    "Substantial evidence exists when reasonable minds can come to the conclusion at issue after examining evidence taken from the record as a whole.53 Only when a court is convinced that reasonable persons could not have reached a verdict for the non-moving party should it grant a motion for JMOL.54 In conducting that inquiry, "the trial court must consider all the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-mover, must draw reasonable inferences favorable to the non-mover, must not determine the credibility of witnesses, and must not substitute its choice for that of the jury."55 If a minimum quantum of evidence exists from which a jury might reasonably have reached its conclusion, a motion for JMOL based on jury error must be denied.56".

    As Tampa, OB, Long, and Trub have pointed out over and over again, and MFs pals refuse to acknowledge, this is all that really counts.

  • Reply to

    Yes, we at Qualcomm.....

    by longprkr Jul 26, 2015 7:48 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 27, 2015 9:48 AM Flag

    OB,
    Qualcomm’s willingness to mislead the CAFC about how their mixers create baseband is completely consistent with why they were fined $1 billion in China.

  • Reply to

    Yes, CAFC Should Look Closely at This Case.....

    by longprkr Jul 26, 2015 7:51 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 27, 2015 9:46 AM Flag

    Wally,
    Another issue that the CAFC could be looking at is current v voltage.

    As to current vs. voltage mode operation: never a topic at trial. Never a topic with the jury! A new non-infringement theory brought up as a foot note in Qualcomm’s appeal, and with no expert testimony or definition of what these even are. CAFC won't be fooled by this last minute attempt to bring up yet another attorney generated diversion with no relevance whatsoever to jury infringement.

    However if the CAFC reads ParkerVision’s patents they will see the switches of energy samplers are setup as current mode devices to generate a baseband signal which has both a current and voltage (of course) and depending on how the baseband is processed can and is measured in voltage, current, and sometimes both depending on the use.

    But none of this is relevant to the claims, the expert testimony, and is Qualcomm’s latest attempt to use lawyers for diverting the issues.

  • Yes, We at Qualcomm conclusion:

    If Qualcomm is truly using prior art old double balanced mixers, "used since the antiquities of time" as Qualcomm's litigator Neal guided the Court, then why not just show the timing and signal flow and end the argument! QUALCOMM LITIGATORS ( NOT EXPERTS) TALKING ABOUT WHERE CIRCUIT COMPONMENTS, SUCH AS CAPACITORS, ARE OR ARE NOT LOCATED WITHOUT SHOWING THE TIMING OF THE MIXER SWITCHES AND SHOWING THE RF TO BASEBAND SIGNAL FLOW MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! IT'S JUST A TACTIC OF CONFUSION AND INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING THE COURT.

    It would be a simple 5 minute explanation to prove non-infringement by the use of "prior art double balanced analog mixers". If his was true, Qualcomm could have showed the Court they didn't infringe, won summary judgement, and avoided the entire trial. Since they ARE infringing their only hope is slick legal maneuvers and hoping to influence judges and courts as they create misdirection in endless legal briefs and hearings. Hopefully the Appellate Court will see through this.

    What is truly ironic about this case is Qualcomm's own founder has explained time and time again that if it wasn't for the protection of the US Patent system Qualcomm could have never become the company it did. But now Qualcomm wants to "GAME" the same system it relied upon for it's own success to destroy another innovator whose technology played a role in Qualcomm's success.

    CAFC should look carefully at this case. The integrity of the jury system, the patent enforcement system, fundamental due process, and the future for US innovators are at stake in this one!

  • Yes-- our Qualcomm email files show we reviewed, liked, and negotiated with ParkerVision for their technology but couldn't agree on a royalty

    Yes our Qualcomm email files show we agreed that ParkerVision's technology could make better phones than we were shipping and that we weren't going to tell ParkerVision we liked their technology

    Yes our Qualcomm emails show our management team tracked ParkerVision's patents for 5 years after our negotiations ended

    Yes we at Qualcomm brought our VP of our RF chip group, who also was involved in the 1999 licensing negotiations to the Dist Ct Trail, but didn't let anyone know he was in the courthouse until AFTER the jury verdict on infringement , and we only allowed him to testify on why an injunction shouldn't be placed against Qualcomm infringing products.

    Yes we at Qualcomm brought an RF engineer to trial as our corporate representative but we didn't allow him to testify about infringement.

    Yes we at Qualcomm brought our expert infringement witness Dr Fox to trial but we didn't allow him to testify about infringement, he left in the middle of the infringement trial.

    Yes at Qualcomm we refused to give ParkerVision timing diagrams they requested that show the timing of how switching in our mixers are operated, and therefore the kind of mixer we use--and yes the court refused to grant ParkerVision motion to compel us to turn over that information.

    Yes ParkerVision used reverse engineering to show the timing diagrams, and yes ParkerVision used our own Qualcomm’s 2010 conference paper that showed the timing diagrams

    Yes our lead litigator at Qualcomm explained that our mixers " make basebands all by themselves" and don't operate as ParkerVision's Expert testified using our own confidential information and ParkerVision's CTO using a reverse engineering teardown testified.

    No we at Qualcomm never explained HOW our mixers make baseband "all by themselves", they just do!, and we don't have to show them.

  • Reply to

    More Thoughts

    by overbrook10 Jul 26, 2015 10:42 AM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 26, 2015 2:29 PM Flag

    Is that like Qualcomm paying Mike Farmwald's legal bill - just before he files? Dirty dogs.

  • Reply to

    Tampa inducted into the Village Idiots Club!!!

    by statesrip Jul 26, 2015 1:23 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 26, 2015 2:24 PM Flag

    Qualcomm = dirty dogs.

  • What's (who?) is your hidden agenda. You have no investment but yet you've posted 20 times in 3 days. Qualcomm lackey. What do they pay you "penny4em?" 20 times in 3 days but no investment. You reek Fud.

  • Reply to

    OB misunderstands fundamental burden of proof

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 2:51 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 24, 2015 4:07 PM Flag

    No, the post above shows he's right on target. You're still back at the "fatal admission" and you don't respond the many posts that have taken this Board much farther. The Jury get's do decide what weight they place on testimony. In lieu of other remarks, they didn't have to (and elected NOT TO) put as much weight on that manipulative questioning as you want everyone to.

  • Reply to

    OB misunderstands fundamental burden of proof

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 2:51 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 24, 2015 3:15 PM Flag

    OB is way ahead of you Fuddy:

    "Judge Dalton's JMOL Opinion states quite clearly that his decision is based on his understanding of Parkervision's case. This understanding is that the TX filter is the only location of the capacitors that generate the baseband. Because Prucnal testified that the BB was generated in the double-balanced mixer "before" the TX Filter, Dalton saw this admission as "fatal" to P's case.

    The problem with this is that I can find no testimony from Parkervision that contends that the TX filter is the ONLY place where the baseband is generated. Insofar as Judge Dalton's opinion is based on a factual error, this is one more reason to reverse.

    He also made 2 other errors. First, he stated that "... the 50% duty cycle products could not be found to infringe because such products are designed to carry a continuous time signal." At P. 25, fn.21. However, he ignores the uncontradicted testimony that NONE of those devices actually operate at 50% - and some as low as 30%

    He also noted that P said there would be no infringement if the TX filter was only used for filtering - all the while ignoring the fact that Prucnal stated that the TX filter had an additional function besides filtering.

    The real question here is - how in the world could any Court UPHOLD Dalton's opinion?"

  • Qualcomm’s willingness to mislead the CAFC about how their mixers create baseband is completely consistent with why they were fined $1 billion in China. Add to that why there is a foreign corrupt practices investigation against them in the U.S., including the reason why there are 2 antitrust investigations against them in Europe. Then add that the Chinese OSM’s are refusing to pay royalties!!

    Please don't confuse. This isn't just a big corporation getting things done. This is pattern by Qualcomm management who think laws are "for others" and don’t apply to their own actions. Qualcomm’s behavior against ParkerVision is a grave injustice that I hope the CAFC will set straight!

    Will CAFC bring the "billion-dollar" bully to task?

  • OB seems to put an exclamation point on so much that has come before!

    "Judge Dalton's JMOL Opinion states quite clearly that his decision is based on his understanding of Parkervision's case. This understanding is that the TX filter is the only location of the capacitors that generate the baseband. Because Prucnal testified that the BB was generated in the double-balanced mixer "before" the TX Filter, Dalton saw this admission as "fatal" to P's case.

    The problem with this is that I can find no testimony from Parkervision that contends that the TX filter is the ONLY place where the baseband is generated. Insofar as Judge Dalton's opinion is based on a factual error, this is one more reason to reverse.

    He also made 2 other errors. First, he stated that "... the 50% duty cycle products could not be found to infringe because such products are designed to carry a continuous time signal." At P. 25, fn.21. However, he ignores the uncontradicted testimony that NONE of those devices actually operate at 50% - and some as low as 30%

    He also noted that P said there would be no infringement if the TX filter was only used for filtering - all the while ignoring the fact that Prucnal stated that the TX filter had an additional function besides filtering.

    The real question here is - how in the world could any Court UPHOLD Dalton's opinion?"

  • Reply to

    New Docket Alerts

    by nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:14 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 24, 2015 7:42 AM Flag

    Fud says, "I suspect it would be a waste of time to ask you what leads you to believe it's more likely that the Appeal Court has doubts concerning Judge Dalton's Infringement ruling."
    Not at all Fud. I'm sure your looking for some technical answer and those have been listed aplenty. Simply, I am an investor and I believe Qualcomm stole PRKR's technology. Maybe I'm not sufficiently jaded that billion-dollar bullies can have thier way in commerce and with the courts.

  • Reply to

    New Docket Alerts

    by nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:14 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 23, 2015 9:26 PM Flag

    No Fud, it's more likely to review that the jury got the infringement right.

  • Reply to

    New Docket Alerts

    by nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:14 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 23, 2015 5:48 PM Flag

    There's more Nubuzz:

    Teeter at the appeal hearing: “There are no capacitors in the mixer.” This is not true
    Teeter: “(Prucnal said) The capacitors follow the mixers and they’re inside this box labeled TX Filter.” Not True! Prucnal clearly is saying when his entire testimony is read, not just a selective piece, there are capacitors at the “output of the mixer”

    This is why Prucnal’s testimony is consistent that the mixer makes the baseband using capacitors and is not a fatal confession as confused Judge Dalton believed when he adopted Qualcomm’s theory that somehow a 25% duty cycle mixer can make baseband without integration capacitors, and, by the way, the capacitors on the mixer schematic aren't really for the mixer – they just were placed there for convenience. The CAFC’s intelligence should be offended and their antennas should be up on Teeter’s testimony in front of them!

    Another issue that the CAFC could be looking at is current v voltage.

    As to current vs. voltage mode operation: never a topic at trial. Never a topic with the jury! A new non-infringement theory brought up as a foot note in Qualcomm’s appeal, and with no expert testimony or definition of what these even are. CAFC won't be fooled by this last minute attempt to bring up yet another attorney generated diversion with no relevance whatsoever to jury infringement.

    However if the CAFC reads ParkerVision’s patents they will see the switches of energy samplers are setup as current mode devices to generate a baseband signal which has both a current and voltage (of course) and depending on how the baseband is processed can and is measured in voltage, current, and sometimes both depending on the use. But none of this is relevant to the claims, the expert testimony, and is Qualcomm’s latest red herring.

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    longprkr longprkr Jul 23, 2015 2:52 PM Flag

    Welcome bask Nubuzz.........................

PRKR
0.238-0.012(-4.76%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT