Recent

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

Rentrak Corporation Message Board

nubuzzman 22 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 11, 2015 1:12 PM Member since: Sep 13, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Continuation - Right here OB

    by longprkr Aug 11, 2015 1:05 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Aug 11, 2015 1:12 PM Flag

    I'm still here as well. Don't read this board very often; seems like it's the bashers talking to the bashers. I have a great deal of faith in Doug Cawley and as I have said before, I will not sell a share of stock until Cawley leaves.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Nubuzzman - are you Overbrook in disguise?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 28, 2015 7:40 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 28, 2015 11:28 PM Flag

    Wrong again Fud; I am not Overbrook but I must admit that he has demonstrated that he has a great deal of intelligence and knowledge of the law.................far more than you, Teamrep, Jinglebells, Statesrip, and MF (what an appropriate monogram) have collectively. Better do some more homework (for which I suspect you are paid an hourly small stipend) with your obsession to spend 24 hours per day, week-ends and holidays included, posting on this board. 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.

  • Reply to

    Location of BB Generation

    by overbrook10 Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 28, 2015 4:03 PM Flag

    I believe Daulton is honest however, he was appointed in the lame duck session of Congress after Obama was elected. The very nature of our political sytem is that one owes favors as they move up the political pole. Also, aone of the closest friends in my life, who was appointed to the Federal bench, served about 5 years and then quit. He said to me, one night when we were out alone, he quit because he wasn't able to deal with the other Judges, most of whom felt they were "captain of the ship" with no boundry.

  • Reply to

    Location of BB Generation

    by overbrook10 Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 28, 2015 3:02 PM Flag

    I recognize your concerns regarding Budins performance, and I wasn't pleased with it when I heard it BUT, remember the legal standard necessary to sustain Daulton. Our founding fathers recognized the collective intelligence of a jury was more reliable than that of any one person and thus, the 7th Amendment. Ultimately it is Cawleys call, and he is more than brilliant. I assume he saved a challenge on voir dire, after Q had used all of theirs, so that he could get the lawyer on the jury so that during deliberation the burden of proof issue, highly significant, would be explained to the other jurors. He saved some of PRKRs patents so that he could essentially try the case1 again and forced Q to show their cards, which they have done. Pay heed to what is going on in Case2; Cawley is on both offense and defense, and it certainly appears to me, he is way ahead. I have spent well over a half century practicing law and I know Daulton should be reversed. In the unlikely event he is affirmed, the ball game is far from over. While we "longs" await the opinion on Case1, with all the analysis being posted, it is all in the hands of the 3 wise men, and the rest of same is pure conjecture. There is alot going on in Case2 and we all are likely better served with our focus on same. Cawley is calling the plays, and he is the BEST.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    The ultimate legal issue in the appeal

    by nubuzzman Jul 25, 2015 9:43 AM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 25, 2015 11:00 AM Flag

    I have cited the law, Better go back to your original argument that the lawyer, the engineer, the retired business man, and the school teachers that sat on the jury were a bunch of "rubes".

  • "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

    New Docket Alerts

    by nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:14 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:17 PM Flag

    But the more I think about it the more I'm convinced it's a positive sign for Parker. No doubt the CAFC is doing it's "homework".

  • nubuzzman by nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 5:14 PM Flag

    The court of appeals has asked for a copy of the JMOL hearing transcript. July 20, 2015
    The court of appeals has asked for a copy of the JMOL hearing transcript. July 20, 2015
    I have thought about this simple request by the Court of Appeals ( CAFC ) for three days now.
    What are they thinking? How will this effect the case? Is it good or bad for ParkerVision?
    Obviously I have no idea what CAFC is thinking, but I want to share with you what I am thinking after reviewing the Dist CT transcripts in detail these past three days.
    My opinion--The CAFC is looking at the JMOL transcript to determine if what Judge Dalton decided was consistent with the Trial Transcript!
    In my mind there are three questions that need to be answered by CAFC as a result of looking at the JMOL Transcript
    1) Is there a capacitor in the mixer or not?
    2) Did Prucnal testify to that fact or not?
    3) Did Teeter ( Council for Qualcomm at CAFC hearing ) mislead the CAFC during his presentation?
    If CAFE reaches the conclusion that the answers to all three questions is YES!!!! They will find for ParkerVision. Let me explain why I think the CAFC will find yes for Parkervision on all three questions.
    To begin --Prucnal's testimony is "buried" in the transcripts. You have to really look to find it.
    Trial Day 3 (16:55:30) “Where are the means for integrating the energy?” (Which creates the baseband). Prucnal’s answer: “The output of the mixer are capacitors.” DONE! INFRINGEMENT!
    “Seen any additional evidence of energy storage capacitors in the accused products?” Prucnal’s answer: “There are additional capacitors which are shown here and here, here and here…” Pointing to the TX Filter!. Prucnal’s explanation that Qualcomm’s mixers are 25% duty cycle samplers (Trial Day 3 16:14:48) and that integration energy storage capacitors are at the output of the mixer (Trial Day 3 16:55:30) are game, set, match that the jury got infringement right and that Judge Dalton had no basis for overturning the infringement

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 3:38 PM Flag

    Budin, B(hummer), and perhaps even Sterne have all made mistakes. Again, JMHO.

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 3:34 PM Flag

    Cawley did not make any mistake. He got a verdict for PRKR. He is one of the very best lawyers I have ever seen "operate". By the way, why did Neal get beat if he didn't make any mistakes/? You are 100% wrong on your conclusions. JMHO

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 2:40 PM Flag

    "substantial evidence" means "minimum quantity" by judicial interpretation. That burden was clearly met as Overbrook has pointed out many times. You must hate my later post on this thread. I told you before; why don't you and your multitude of MF pals go back to law school?

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 1:30 PM Flag

    Please note the last sentence where substantial evidence is defined as "MINIMUM QUANTITY"

  • Reply to

    My View - Part II

    by overbrook10 Jul 23, 2015 12:19 PM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 23, 2015 1:24 PM Flag

    I must respectfully disagree with you when you continually use the expression " Substantial evidence", without defining what the Courts and Rule 50(B) have interpreted as same. It has been defined as follows: "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".
    The above demonstrates that the burden QCOM had to overcome clearly failed.

  • nubuzzman by nubuzzman Jul 21, 2015 7:38 AM Flag

    PRKR has filed a new complaint, against BLU, for patent infringement. It has nothing to do with the QCOM litigation. More complaints likely to follow.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - two questions you haven't answered

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:07 AM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jul 6, 2015 1:35 PM Flag

    Overbrook your posts regarding the law are 100% "right on". I only wish Hummer and Budwin were as prepared as you are. Keeping the barstards honest, although uninformed. Thanks much

  • Reply to

    coincidence??

    by nubuzzman Jun 26, 2015 7:41 AM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jun 26, 2015 11:43 AM Flag

    Why dont you take a long walk on a short bridge?

  • Reply to

    coincidence??

    by nubuzzman Jun 26, 2015 7:41 AM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jun 26, 2015 10:21 AM Flag

    It is far more significant than your post recognizes

  • nubuzzman by nubuzzman Jun 26, 2015 7:41 AM Flag

    Within 48 hours after Farmwald and RPX filed Rambus and QCOM announced licensing agreement?

  • Reply to

    Parkervision Press Release

    by nubuzzman Jun 16, 2015 11:41 AM
    nubuzzman nubuzzman Jun 16, 2015 11:43 AM Flag

    The support of McKool Smith enables us to better manage our expenses, while at the same time ensuring that both parties are focused on successfully prosecuting this action."

    ParkerVision commenced this action against Qualcomm, HTC and Samsung in 2014, alleging the infringement of eleven ParkerVision patents related to RF down-conversion and up-conversion technologies, systems for control of multi-mode, multi-band communications, baseband innovations including control and system calibration, and wireless protocol conversion. The case schedule has a technology tutorial set for June 29, 2015, a Markman hearing on August 12, 2015 and a trial scheduled to begin on August 1, 2016.

  • ParkerVision Enters Into Full Contingent Funding Arrangement for Ongoing Patent Infringement
    JACKSONVILLE, Fla., June 15, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- 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. Previously, McKool Smith was retained on a partial contingent basis whereby ParkerVision funded a portion of legal fees and all expenses.
    ParkerVision's lead litigator and principal at McKool Smith, Doug Cawley, commented, "We have worked with ParkerVision for a number of years and are very familiar with their technology, their patents, and their management team. We believe in this company and look forward to our continued relationship."
    Commenting on the revised retention agreement, ParkerVision's Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Parker stated, "We appreciate the confidence McKool Smith has demonstrated in ParkerVision by taking on our ongoing litigation on a fully contingent basis. We have developed a strong relationship with our litigation partners at McKool Smith over the past few years, and believe they are absolutely the right firm to assist us in prosecuting infringers of our intellectual property."Mr. Parker continued, "The cost of litigation in the U.S. creates a significant financial burden, particularly for the small innovator.

RENT
43.77-1.87(-4.10%)1:52 PMEDT