Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

overbrook10 184 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: Aug 3, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • overbrook10 overbrook10 15 hours ago Flag

    until the second case is over

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 15 hours ago Flag

    It ain't over,,,,,,,,,,

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip 18 hours ago
    overbrook10 overbrook10 16 hours ago Flag

    Thanks Tampa - I just read it quickly and am still digesting it. Somewhat surprising on invalidity How is the second suit different from the first?

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip 18 hours ago
    overbrook10 overbrook10 16 hours ago Flag

    I wonder, FUD, if you have ever considered the possibility that some investors truly thought that PV had a case, and that there was a solid basis for the JMOL to be reversed. That's what we have been posting all along- interestingly, it looks like the court may have really decided this thing on invalidity and just threw in the infringement. Will have tp await the opinion.

    And I do believe that Judge Dalton got it wrong

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip 18 hours ago
    overbrook10 overbrook10 18 hours ago Flag

    If you haven't noticed Knucklehead, the stock is bouncing back from its pre-halt lows. I guess these new names shouting to pick up shares were right LOL

  • Reply to

    Nary a peep from the pumpers

    by statesrip 18 hours ago
    overbrook10 overbrook10 18 hours ago Flag

    What do expect us to say, you knucklehead? I concluded that the appeals court would rule in Parkervision's favor primarily on the basis of the limited standard of review. I was wrong. I will be interested to read the opinion to see what they say.

    Everyone involved in this stock knew (or should have known) that this was a speculative investment where you could have a significant loss. I own some stock, and will just keep it for Round 2 with Qualcomm. I am sure that Cawley & Co will be studying the appeal decision to inform their trial tactics for the second trial

  • Reply to

    it's happening!

    by worthless_stock_specialist 20 hours ago
    overbrook10 overbrook10 19 hours ago Flag

    Has anyone seen an Order or Press Release?

  • Reply to

    The Moment of Truth during the court case

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 23, 2015 1:56 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 21 hours ago Flag

    I must say, FUD - you really earn your money

    Prucnal's testimony about the Dbl balanced mixer was part of showing how the APs actually work - in an infringing manner. If you are saying that Prucnal's description of the operation of the APs is accurate, that's great - because no one else did, as I have previously stated numerous times.

    and although he didn't say "only" his opinion was clearly based upon the TX filter as the "only" place where the baseband generation took place according the PV - otherwise his conclusion makes no sense.

    Once again, you are just making it up about why Dalton felt the admission was fatal - he never mentioned the failure to match 2 of the steps of down-conversion - never mentioned matching at all - likewise Mr. Neal never cross-examined on matching the steps and it was never mentioned in any of Q's appeals Briefs - So maybe you can point out where that testimony is located.

    Hey Tampa - if you are reading this, I would like your take on this. FUD just bounces from one fabrication to another - like a pinball machine

  • Reply to

    The Moment of Truth during the court case

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 23, 2015 1:56 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 9:35 PM Flag

    FUD- You are like the guys in the Obama Administration - you just make stuff up.I am not answering for you - because your opinion has been bought and paid for - Teamrep to. However, for some poor reader who may be taken in by your balderdash.

    So - to the fabrications

    - You speak of the " Qualcomm method of down-conversion" as if that were something explained to the jury. Baloney! Nothing of the sort was explained to the jury. That's the point of noting that Qualcomm had NO witnesses on infringement - no one explained HOW Qualcomm's supposed double-balanced mixers were designed or actually operated.

    - Your explanation of the basis of Judge Dalton's decision is a hoot. Didn't you read his opinion ? It certainly doesn't seem so.
    - As for not matching steps of methods of down- conversion, Mr. Neal failed to ask even ONE question regarding matching the steps of the patent to the APs

    - You just make up stuff about how Dalton supposedly rules. You say that Dalton ruled as he did because PV failed to match 2 of the steps to Q's supposed method of down-conversion. Why don't you cite those passages.

    - Well, I will tell you that you can't because the Judge made NO comment on matching of steps. He DID say that in his opinion, PV's case was based on the baseband generation taking place ONLY in the TX filter. Thus, when Prucnal answered a question that the BB was generated in another double balanced mixer "before" the caps in the TX filter, that admission was "fatal" to P's case. However, from my reading, PV never contended that that's the only place for BB generation.

    In any event, I have shown how you and team just make stuff up. Why don't you go make up some more cool stuff

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - here YET AGAIN is your answer

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 12:55 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 6:20 PM Flag

    OK FUD -since you seem to be an adherent to the BIG LIE approach - just repeat a lie over and over until people just give up and accept the lie. Just tell us when and where this testimony took place

  • Reply to

    The Moment of Truth during the court case

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 23, 2015 1:56 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 5:32 PM Flag

    FUD- I have already explained why PV would not call a Q engineer about design of the chips. First there is the question of identifying the expert who could testify about the design of the chip - and not some portion of the chip that he happened to work on.

    The more serious problem is that it is always dangerous to call the defendant or a defendant's employee to the stand. You know Q would have prepared that witness to testify negatively for PV. And because he is your witness, you can't ask him leading questions. A litigator never wants to ask a question that he doesn't know the answer to. Given Q's reputation in litigation, it would be foolish to call a witness from Qcom.

    As to Qcom, the exact opposite considerations apply. Assuming your transcription is accurate, why didn't Neal call Jaffee in his case in chief? That would have KILLED PV. No - these big firms have strategy meetings to discuss and plan all aspects of a trial. This was a big case with a big client All those attorneys must have come to a consensus that it would be too dangerous to put their own people - even their own expert - on the stand. The only rational explanation for this is that they concluded that they were vulnerable- would have been made to admit things that could hurt Qcom

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - here YET AGAIN is your answer

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 12:55 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 4:11 PM Flag

    OK FUD I will bite - who was the secret witness who gave Qualcomm testimony on infringement? Maybe we all missed him or her. Maybe they were all so fast, we missed them on a bathroom break. Just tell me who and when- thanks

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - here YET AGAIN is your answer

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 12:55 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 3:23 PM Flag

    Team- you guys keep referring to the "testimony that Qualcomm resented..." You understand, don't you, that Q presented NO witnesses and NO testimony on infringement?

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - here YET AGAIN is your answer

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 12:55 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 3:20 PM Flag

    FUD - You guys are a hoot. Taking the last first, on infringement you say "You still haven't denied you'd have dismissed any Qualcomm testimony as lies." Problem is there WAS NO "Qualcomm Testimony" on infringement - which is one of the problems. Here you have a defendant being sued for patent infringement and this defendant, one of the richest and most sophisticated firms on the planet, doesn't put ANY witness on the stand to deny infringement.
    And don't give me that they thought they would win on cross- exam. It was pretty clear especially with Fox that Q was afraid to put him on the stand. Why?

    Looks to me that Q was going to concede infringement, and concentrate on invalidity. Not a good trial strategy with the jury, but not bad once Judge Dalton took over.

    Your explanation of what Dalton believed about the generation of the baseband in the cap is just buffalo chips. He was quite clear why he thought it was 'Fatal" - it was because Dalton thought that PV's case was limited to the TX filter as the only "place" where the PV caps generate the baseband. However, Prucnal admitted that the baseband was generated before that in the double-balanced mixer. So, no infringement if bb generated someplace besides TX filter.

    As for me, I can't find any testimony whereby a PV witness testified that the BB is generated ONLY in the TX filter

    Knowing all that, Budwin's response on later oral argument is still disappointing

  • Reply to

    Communication

    by trublvrprkr Jul 30, 2015 1:53 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 3:06 PM Flag

    Judges on the panel would never have an ex parte communication with the trial judge. The matter will be decided on the record. only

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - here YET AGAIN is your answer

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 12:55 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 1:50 PM Flag

    Way out there FUD (I thought you were TEAMREP for a minute) So, let me get this straight - you are saying that PV had their witness on the stand for 2 days - and never once did he testify as to a critical part of the the Plaintiff's cause of action? And none of PV's attorneys there picked it up? And Judge Dalton didn't pick it up, and sent the case to the jury ? Yeah-rght

  • Reply to

    The moment Holy Grail turned into Holy Cow!

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 30, 2015 10:40 AM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 12:49 PM Flag

    What a "crock" you are Team. Chuck Wheatley and team spent hours studying the PATENTS (not some "black box" supported by BS from Parker and Sorrells) and concluded that PV 'stumbled " onto something revolutionary. These are the very same patents that were submitted at trial. I am sure that Wheatley is experienced with patents - and he concluded that anybody using PV's approach would be "stepping on their claims." So the QCOM enthusiasm was based on the patents, not on the Boards. It's also my recollection that the Boards P provided did work well.

    According to my recollection there was also a point in the emails where they said they had to do some tuning and the thing worked great

    You can be sure that experienced savvy engineers like Wheatley & Co. were not going to be snookered by the likes of "Fairies Dust" Parker. I am sure they gets guys like that coming into QCOM and trying to sell them their latest and greatest invention.

  • Reply to

    Teamrep - is energy transfer of use in theory?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 29, 2015 10:23 AM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 12:40 PM Flag

    Wrong, wrong, wrong Teamrep. You have not a clue as to the law, and you should stop posting about legal matters- there might some poor misguided soul out there who actually believes you.

    So:
    1. You have no idea what the concept of "hearsay" is, and should stop referring to it. There was no hearsay in the critical testimony of Dr. Prucnal. Mr. Neal never cross- examine Prucnal on the issue of "hearsay"
    2. Neither Chuck Wheatley or any of the other QCOM engineers ever criticized the PV patents as being vague/indefinite.
    3. Mr. Neal never cross-examined Prucnal on the claim that the patents were vague or indefinite or failed to teach the invention
    4. None of the appeals Briefs filed by QCOM ever made an argument that the patents are too vague or
    indefinite

    There might be some legitimate criticisms of PV's case, but not those that you pointed out. Not only that but the jury happened to have decided this case in Parkervision's favor

  • Reply to

    Teamrep - is energy transfer of use in theory?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 29, 2015 10:23 AM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 12:05 PM Flag

    Tampa - what the Appeals Court may do - and probably should do - is decide the case purely on the standard of review- it does not have to validate Parkervision's case at all. All it has to decide is that there is SOME evidence - more than a "scintilla" that tends to support the verdict. They can reverse on that alone without getting into a big long discussion of the merits

  • Reply to

    Teamrep - is energy transfer of use in theory?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 29, 2015 10:23 AM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jul 30, 2015 11:50 AM Flag

    Team- that doesn't answer the simple question of - why didn't QCOM put Chuck Wheatley or one of its other engineers on the stand to simple testify that the APs don't energy sample? This case would have been over a long time ago. Don't think that the Federal Circuit hasn't noticed this too. And Dr. Fox was in the courtroom on one day when Dr. Prucnal was testifying.

    There is only one possible reason- that person's testimony would have been bad for QCOM

PRKR
0.34-0.12(-26.25%)Jul 31 4:00 PMEDT