Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 10:12 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 48 mins

Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

overbrook10 240 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 23, 2015 1:12 PM Member since: Aug 3, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Overbrook - the Appeal Court will also wonder

    by fud.fighter2 Jan 23, 2015 11:53 AM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 23, 2015 1:12 PM Flag

    You miss the point FUD. Why didn't QCOM call one of its engineers or executives to testify about the Berkana acquisition? None of what you discuss was introduced into evidence, and so neither Judge Dalton, the jury or the Federal Circuit can consider it.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - could an "exact" match be argued?

    by fud.fighter2 Jan 22, 2015 2:17 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 22, 2015 9:44 PM Flag

    Thanks for the input Tampa. It always bothered me that on the one hand, QCOM was looking for a new way to downconvert back in 2004 or so and the on the other hand we have the Accuse Products which they claim use an old-fashioned mixer - except that nobody testified exactly how it worked. What's more there was no indication who or when it was developed. I have to give it to Mr Neal - some masterful lawyering that was very well thought out.

    Fortunately it looks like justice will eventually be done

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - could an "exact" match be argued?

    by fud.fighter2 Jan 22, 2015 2:17 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 22, 2015 6:59 PM Flag

    Tampa- the funny thing in all of this is that neither Dalton nor Neal ever explained precisely how Prucnal's admission was "fatal" to Parkervision's case. As a practical matter, assuming it means what Neal says it means, I can see how it hurts P as in what do we need P for when the baseband has already been generated? However, that doesn't address the matching of the claims to the accused products, which is required in a patent case.

    Another issue is - if Q's chips don't use P's patents, what is so great about them? I thought that back in 2003 or 2004 Q was desperately trying new ideas to keep up with the competition. Now they say they use good old double-balanced mixers using well recognized prior art. Well, how is that an improvement over what they had been using beforehand? They never explained how their mixers worked which makes it all the more confusing

  • Reply to

    PV Appeal Response

    by tampa2013 Jan 21, 2015 2:41 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 22, 2015 6:28 PM Flag

    States- wrong- Dalton ignored the clear caselaw that no testing or simulations are required for expert opinion. I am glad Dunner also explained how the Becton case is of no relevance- nice job. BTW I don't believe "lack of adequate homework" is a proper basis for throwing out a $173 million jury verdict

  • Reply to

    PV Appeal Response

    by tampa2013 Jan 21, 2015 2:41 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 22, 2015 6:24 PM Flag

    Tampa - my understanding, based upon the footnote in the Brief, is that the outcome of the IPR's have no impact on nthe suit

  • Reply to

    PV Appeal Response

    by tampa2013 Jan 21, 2015 2:41 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 22, 2015 2:21 PM Flag

    Tampa - I agree. I have stated before a number of times that the Reply Brief was a make-or-break deal. If the Brief was weak, things would not look good for PRKR I have now read the Brief 3 times, and I am very satisfied with it. They hit all the right points -and hit them hard. I am so happy that they pointed out that the mixer which Judge Dalton found so "fatal" because it generated the baseband before it hit the TX filter contains a switch and capacitors , and so meets Prucnal's description.

    They also focused on the fact that this is a review of a Order overturning a jury verdict. I won't go into detail, but they addressed all of salient points and showed how Q's argument was based on attorney argument or evidence not before the jury or is simply based on an incorrect representation of the testimony.

    Based on all of the above, in my opinion, the Federal Circuit will reverse Judge Dalton and reinstate the jury verdict. Given the risk-reward ratio involved, this is an intelligent speculation - not a guaranteed slam-dunk, but positive enough to invest some serious money

  • Reply to

    OB

    by statesrip Jan 13, 2015 4:08 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 13, 2015 6:38 PM Flag

    States - the Federal Circuit would have a few options if the JMOL ruling is overturned. Most simply, it could reverse the grant of JMOL, and then send it back to Dalton to decide the rest of the motions- for ongoing royalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, etc. Then, Qualcomm could come back and appeal the whole shebang - infringement, invalidity, damages, etc. That route would be the "cleanest" and the most efficient route.

    It could also decide those issues itself. It could also affirm Dalton's conditional grant of a new trial, but I think that was ruling is completely unsupported, and unnecessary. No reason to have a new trial here. Both sides received a fair hearing, and there is simply no justification for a do-over.

    I am awaiting Dunner's reply Brief to see if there is any juice to this appeal. Although his opening Brief was OK - Neal's people tore it apart in a huge outburst of aggressive advocacy. If Dunner doesn't respond in kind- and in particular meet the "Prucnal Admission" head on, P may well be in trouble.

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 13, 2015 7:20 AM Flag

    I believe that P's Reply Brief will reflect the true strength or weakness of its case on appeal. One may look to the history of this case to see P's strategy. In the Markman hearing, P's opening Brief did not contain all of its arguments. Only in its Reply Brief, to which Qualcomm did not have the right of a response, did Parkervision set forth the arguments of Dr. Prucnal. It sort of suckered Qualcomm into responding the (weaker) arguments in its Opening Brief, and then blindsided it with Prucnal's expert report.

    I hope that this is Dunner's strategy. The Opening Brief sidestepped the "Prucnal Admission." I believe that if he doesn't address that argument head on in his Reply, he could well lose this appeal. On the other hand, a strong response could save the day. Primary is - what is "fatal" about the Prucnal admission? Neither Judge Dalton nor Q's attorneys ever explained exactly how it destroyed P's case.

  • I have been working and not had the time to engage in the fun on this Board although I have kept reading. 2 questions - anyone know when the reply brief is due? anyone know how much teamrep gets paid per post?This guy is amazing - even when the most dedicated of longs are watching football games or having family over for the holidays (and not posting), teamrep keeps banging them out rat-a-tat. Must be lonely down there in the basement

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 12, 2015 3:44 PM Flag

    Oh trub, don't be so "gosh" in your defense of teamrep. He is certainly "on tract" in his development of an anti-PRKR thesis. I, too, use a voice recognition software to draft correspondence and Briefs. However, I engage in this little exercise called "proof-reading" so that I don't look like an idiot when I submit papers that I dashed off stream-of-consciousness" style., Certainly adds to the gravitas of his remarks.

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Jan 8, 2015 4:39 PM Flag

    Tampa- more good news. Now, where is Mr. Teamrep when we need him? He will be here soon spitting and moaning how we are all jerks, the IPR Board are a bunch of jerks, and according to his scientific calculamations and cogitumgurgitations(Team is great at his hilarious misspellings which completely undercut whatever garbage he is spewing - I love his use of "gosh" as I recall- I think he was trying to say "gauche" but whose looking too close? A real "deez, dems and dozer") Parkervision only has a .065 percent chance of winning on appeal. (I have been practicing law for 35 years, and have never heard anyone ever describe a chance of winning or losing a case that way).

    Anyway - Teamrep says we are all jerk losers who are going to lose all our money- Jeff Parker is a lying thief who has been able to squeeze money out of the likes of Michael Dell with his obviously false "Fairy Dust" confabulations (which BTW also took in such technical lightweights as Chuck Wheatley - the Chief Technology Officer of Qualcomm and his staff) - any idiot could see that the Parkervision patents are invalid based on prior art (your bad- Dr. Weisskopf)- and are worth nothing ($173 million?).

    Well, I guess that sums its up- all of Longs should just leave a last note and take the gas pipe because the future lies with the pure ethics and technical genius of Qualcomm. (And forget about that pesky federal judge that found in the Broadcomm case that the senior management of Q and their attorneys were a bunch lying thieves that perjured themselves and suborned perjury before a federal jury. Also, please also forget that a federal jury found that Q stole P's technology to the tune of $173 million. Never let facts get in the way of a good story).

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 5:38 PM Flag

    Cloud- Just as an aside- what "basic laws of wireless" does D2D violate? I am asking a serious question - I am not an EE, and I have heard that criticism a number of times. If that were true, why didn't Neal ever argue that point at trial? Would seem to be a devastating defense.

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 5:34 PM Flag

    Cloud- You just make comments that miss the point. Probably intentionally. As I mentioned earlier, your comments require one to believe that the very top electrical engineers at Qualcomm lack the brains to be able to read these patents and see that they are bogus-violate the laws of physics - can't work-yadayadayada.. You mention #$%$ that is completely irrelevant to a patent infringement lawsuit - such as proving a viable commercial application or sales.

    The point is Parkervision pretty much won all the big decisions in the litigation context except one - where the judge decided to step in and substitute his judgment for that of the jury. We will see how much the Federal Circuit likes that one.

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 4:05 PM Flag

    Baloney cloud. "Our side lost" because Judge Dalton determined that the so-called "Prucnal admission" was somehow fatal to Parkervision's case. Of course, neither the judge nor anyone else has explained exactly how that admission was fatal. Oh yeah - P "lost" because the judge mischaracterized the testimony about the 50% duty cycle stuff. That's pretty much it.

    There is no legal requirement that P has to show that "its theories of operation" work. You guys just make up stuff as you go along. There are some real criticism to be leveled against Parkervision. However, most of you bashers miss the legitimate criticisms, and rely on the ad hominem attacks and name calling a la Fairy Dust. Makes one wonder about your motivation.

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 11:19 AM Flag

    Cloud- maybe you can explain how the Prucnal admission is "fatal" to Parkervision's case

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 11:05 AM Flag

    Cloud- your lack of response proves the point. This wasn't "Q's people" This was Qualcomm's Chief Technical Officer - a Qualcomm Fellow- as well as the leading electrical engineers at Qualcomm responsible for maintaining Qualcomm's worldwide technological leadership. You may refer to them as "some errant fellow idiots at Q" But I don't believe that they are referred to that way at Qualcomm.

    Just proves that you have no response to the valid point that none of the electrical engineers at Qualcomm described the Parkervision patents in the condescending, insulting and disparaging manner that you and your fellow minions do. Looks like Parkervision did in fact stumble onto something quite valuable.

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 9:56 AM Flag

    5. Your explanation about why Q's people were initially enamored of the Parkervision patents would require one to believe that the Chief Technology Officer and other senior electrical engineers at Qualcomm - the very people who were responsible for Qualcomm's near-monopoly position in world-wide licensing (1/3 of Qualcomm revenue) and sales of chips for cell phones and other wireless devices- could not recognize patents that were gibberish - irretrievably vague and useless-that were based on well-known prior art - that violated the laws of physics- that were made up of "Fairy Dust"- etc. In other words- idiots. I am sure that Qualcomm is approached all the time by wild-eyed inventors claiming to have conceived of the next new thing. I am also sure that Dr. Wheatley and his colleagues know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Your explanation simply makes no sense- they could not have been that stupid. Which leaves one with the conclusion that Parkervision did invent something of value- even if it did not have the resources to put it into practice.

    The basher thesis of Fairy Dust etc. is very appealing except for that inconvenient fact- the top people at Qualcomm didn't blow it off as Fairy Dust. Wheatley didn't testify that it was Fairy Dust. Why not? Would have been an easy case.

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 9:42 AM Flag

    Sorry - Cloud - but your response is completely without merit.
    1. Dalton's ruling was nothing more than an expression of his own opinion as to the validity of Q's case - which is simply improper. He went completely off the reservation on this - somewhere along the line he decided that P's case was BS, and he simply substituted his opinion for that of the jury, which is why he will be reversed.
    2. Neal did not put on a clean case of non-infringement - he put no case on. The cases say repeatedly that the Plaintiff's burden in a patent infringement case is to demonstrate that each and every claim (as construed) of the patent is practiced by the Accused Products. Prucnal testified specifically how that was done in this case. Mr. Neal did not ask him ONE question in cross-examination on that issue - which means that - on a JMOL- the Court MUST accept that testimony as true. Case over.
    3. No one - including Judge Dalton - has been able to explain how the "Prucnal admission" is fatal to Parkervision's case. It can't have any effect on the testimony regarding the practicing of the patent claims - because there was no adverse testimony or cross- examination on that issue. I understand how it might be troublesome in a practical sense - but on a JMOL it is simply irrelevant, and it does not contradict Prucnal's testimony.
    4. Moreover, for all the talk about Parkervision selling a "story" regarding the meetings, emails, etc., NONE of Dr. Prucnal's testimony mentions that at all. His is simply limited to the electrical engineering. I have always discounted Jeff's and Sorrells testimony - they may have provided context - but no proofs on infringement. This jury was not stupid.

    Contd

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 9:12 AM Flag

    One more thing - back in 2004, when Qualcomm was desperately looking for a way to keep its technological lead, it considered taking "the Parkervision approach." Now what was that? Energy sampling? Something which Mr. Neal - but no witness at trial - said Magellan/Solo does NOT do? BTW, if the patent board determines that they sample, is case over for Q?

  • Reply to

    Weisskopf

    by tampa2013 Dec 27, 2014 12:46 PM
    overbrook10 overbrook10 Dec 30, 2014 9:05 AM Flag

    Cloud- if what you say is true - why was Dr. Wheatley and all the other technical gurus so taken with the Parkervision patents? There is a huge disconnect here that no basher - not even Dr. Shredder Farmwald- has been able to explain. You guys keep beating the drum about "Fairy Dust" etc ad nauseum ad infinitum. Yet none of your criticisms was ever voiced by Wheatley or anybody else. And this is based on their review of the patents - not upon any representations made by Jeff.

    Not one of those guys ever said that it was gibberish - that it did not describe something that could be made into something useful - that it violated Shannon's Law or any other law of physics - that it was Fairy Dust - that it used well-known concepts from prior art and tried to use them in a confusing manner - etc.

    Not one of your criticisms were ever voiced by any of the leading electrical engineers at Qualcomm. What some of them DID say was that P's patents really didn't add anything of value to current designs. That is a far cry from the "Fairy Dust" campaign of unrelenting disparagement that all you bashers engage in. It just gives credence that there was and is a conscious campaign by Qualcomm and its minions (that's you) to destroy this little company in order to avoid its infringement.

    I don't expect a response - because there really is none. The only way one can believe you guys is to accept that Wheatley et al were idiots who could not recognize an obvious scam when they saw one.

PRKR
1.03+0.01(+0.98%)10:11 AMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.