Statesrip, it is heartening to learn of your epiphany and that you agree with urspond that Farmwald is the kind of guy who would deliberately make false statements, such as those below and write an S-A hit piece to manipulate others into selling him their (short or long) shares so that he could cover more of his disastrous short.
Welcome back to the Side of the Light, o’ Darth Vader.
Farmwald’s quotes from this board (likely stock manipulating lies according to his own sycophant, Mastiff protector, statesrip):
August 2013: “I am not covering my short and have no intention of doing so until after QCOM wins at trial, where I will cover at tens of cents (at most). I shorted some additional stock on Monday (after reading the judges ruling.)”
May 2008: “I don't intend to until ParkerVision has completely bit the dust.”
Wrong, as usual, rippy ... Farmwald's posted that he didn't cover any ... in fact he was touting additional short and the short was growing at sub-2-dollars - the guy's getting killed on his short and you're either an obvious liar and completely incompetent juvenile clown, staterip
Farmwald has made no secret as to when and why he established his short. Read Barron's and his old posts, and look at the progression of the short position and the inescapable conclusion is that he's down big-time, hasn't covered, and it's like in the neighborhood of 5 million shares, average price of less than $2.
How do I know this: Well, in addition to the growth of the short position, he tells you many things: First, that the initial short was in response to his cynical take on an effort by the company or its agents to raise money from him; other statements he made pinpoint around 2005 (prior to that PV got money from the likes of CSCO, LUK, TXN and other major industry players), but if he lied, it could have been late-2003 around the time of his first post.
From there, look at the growth of the short position and the lack of change after the phase two verdict, as well as Wellington’s stake, which explains a substantial amount of that volume having nothing to do with Farmwald or Kerrisdale. Also, look at Farmwald’s S-A, beta sigma piece after phase two – why would he write it, if he just got through covering, as States is trying to claim in a pathetic attempt to bolster Farmwald’s “creditility”
One of the most symmetrical reverse head and shoulders I've ever seen - next resistance is of course $8, then basically nothing until what should be only very weak resistance at this point from five-year-plus holders at $14 ...
Keep in mind most posters here from that era are gone and probably every institution, other than those that came back in at $2, like Wellington ...
Meanwhile you could get "sellers' remorse" accumulation from those that cashed-out around a buck and are now watching McKool mop the floor with Qualcomm, Kerrisdale and Farmwald.
That's logical, Farmwald!
According to you: Energy Sampling (aka, d2d) doesn't exist, but it is anticipated by "papers" given at conferences, where one distinguished presenter now says his paper teaches away from energy sampling.
So the paper isn't about d2d, but it anticpates d2d, which, according to you is an old idea, yet, according to you, this old idea somehow doesn't exist.
Too bad Qualcomm didn't put you on the stand to explain that one!
Btw, according to you, do the found-to-infringe Qualcomm parts sample or continuously mix?
Farmwald - You should change your name to Fud-Spreader too. Just like the other Fud, I bet you cannot answer the below as to how PV presented "generating" incorrectly when you read the **rest** of what the Judge actually wrote. While you're at it, go ahead and explain what Quacomm's found-to-infringe parts are according to you: Continuous mixers? Or voltage samplers? I can't wait for your bluster-boy, non-answer.
Fud - The part you leave out is:
"It is apparent from the briefing and patent specifications that a signal could be “generated” from a charge held in a capacitor either directly, by discharging the capacitor, or indirectly, by measuring the voltage across the capacitor. The language used in the generating claim limitation does not distinguish between these two techniques. One skilled in the art who reads the disclosure may conclude that the various elements of the claims combine to restrict the claimed invention to the former rather than the latter."
PV presented infringement via the "former" direct approach using the Tx filter capacitor. You want to say that where Prucnal can be argued as saying otherwise justifies JMOL. You keep repeating, like the Big Lie, that reference to creatiing a baseband, can't be a sample that is not a demodulated baseband signal, but rather one that contains baseband information or is part of the "baseband path" as Qualcomm labeled it. But it doesn't matter if you are right, because PV presented infringement via the direct approach using the Tx filter capacitor and it can never be argued that was not what the jury accepted - thus no JMOL.
OB, I agree with the below. PV has infinitely more credibility now, but they have also previewed their strategy and it's not nearly as unclear as Rob would like us to believe.
Once the ongoing royalty rate is set by Dalton and final judgment entered, PV will be going to the OEMs with standstills and others to implement Rivette's grand carrot and stick strategy ... it's a target-rich environment
A great deal of Parkervision's history is a function of Qualcomm's successful and massive theft of its intellectual property
And you'd be buying to cover, eh fud ... nice of you to expose your short-term agenda for manipulating the stock to save you from your short position.
As I suspected, Sahmie; no doubt you covered that million shares on strength over the last two weeks.
Too bad for you that you will not be able to stimulate the sale of one share after PV files their responsive briefs by 1/24/14, as it will then be plainly obvious to even the most biased or A-D-D observer, that you are completely full of it, and, as even Qualcomm has already told you through its paid basher, teamrep, that you are just "droning on" pointlessly.
fud: every one of you pumpers privately considers that outcome to be a very real possibility - and is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to sell his shares beforehand, and buy back if ParkerVision survives the JMOL decision.
Too bad for you, fud, but implications have not a thing to do with the legal standard for JMOL or appeal.
To reach your conclusion, the courts must ignore the statement you drone on about and only consider the rest of the trial record (including that 25 pages). And, of course, you admit to never seeing, hearing or looking at that record, yet you want people to sell their PRKR solely because Qualcomm - shutout on claim construction, validity and infringement - says there was no such evidence to reasonably support the verdict.
fud: His evidence of non-infringement clearly implies that NONE of the 25 pages of evidence of down-conversion was evidence of infringing down-conversion.
Rob: There's no way to reconcile what you are saying now with your statement below to fud from five days ago.
Prucnal had an answer for the voltage levels, referencing specific wave forms he measured.
There's just no way Qualcomm's parts can be a continuous mixers based on that testimony. So the case can't be overturned on the factual argument by fud, Qualcomm, or now you vs. you from five days ago. This is the province of the jury, not the court.
And, even if Qualcomm had put in evidence and testimony - facts, weighing of evidence, and credibility, are all for the jury, not the courts.
Meanwhile, you, Farmwald and Fud still can't explain what Qualcomm's parts are - irrelevant to your hopeless arguments against the verdict, but highly relevant your despicable intellectually dishonesty.
teamrep to fud from five days ago:
"In other words a "signal" COULD be generated by the filter in the accused products - but the mixer DOES, in fact, create the baseband." .. Why drone on about this so much? A capacitor is very often used in a RX circuit to accumulate the very weak received signals during sampling periods so that measurements can be made. You dare not tying that to the current situation very well imo.
Farmwald started PVnotes and then started posting here as PVnotes several months before "supersleuth2007" outed him on 8/1/2007; The Bill Alpert article was also outed here about a week before publication because Farmwald was bragging about it. Interestingly, supersleuth2007 stated that Farmwald was long, pretending to be short, so that his PRKR investment could profit from a squeeze in the same manner as RMBS
Actually, Farmwald tried to remain anonymous. PVnotes was initially anonymous and the "collective" posted here anonymously for about a year; then Farmwald was outed on this board; then he "went public" - not exactly what you say ...
ever shooting off his mouth about how JP's a fraud and d2d isn't novel or valuable and d2p doesn't work ... blah, blah, blah ...
If you still believe in this guy, ask yourself a question: why can't he even tell you what Qualcomm's found-to-infringe parts are? Ask him if they're continuous mixers, and, if so, why Qualcomm didn't put on an expert to say so; ask him if they're voltage samplers, and, if so, why Qualcomm didn't put on an expert to dispute that Qualcomm was using a large capacitor and driving a low impendence load.
Ask him about Qualcomm's two 2006 patents, issued in 2010. Ask him how Qualcomm achieves down conversion via sub-sampling and delivering current to a low impendence load without stepping on PV's patents.
Ask Farmwald why Qualcomm didn't cite PV to the USPTO in those patent apps. Ask him about the "small" capacitor embodiments, and again ask him why Qualcomm didn't just put an expert on the stand to explain that the capacitor was small (as in its patents) or not in the rf path (to dispute Prucnal testimony).
Farmwald is a seriously evil fraud. He can't answer any of this, yet he continues and never retracts his lies. They may not be as obvious to you as they are to me, but ask yourself this: why can't Farmwald dispute any of this with any specificity whatsoever?
I don't care what the shorts or others think of me. I don't care whether they think they can trick the judge or the appellate courts.
What I do care about though is the ultimate intellectual dishonesty; unlike anything I've ever seen, as perpetrated by one Dr. Michael P. Farmwald - who cannot, and, I predict, will not, dispute anything I have written here with a single relevant fact in legitimate context.
fud, Prucnal and I are the least of your problems: you have to convince Qualcomm's mouthpiece, teamrep, that it's not a voltage sampler; then stop refusing and look at the 25 pages of testimony specifically cited by McKool to eviscerate what you are droning on about (in the words of teamrep); then explain how you get around the law that is all against you getting anywhere, even if you had a point ...
Meaning, you'll take excerpts out of context from the comments of posters who point out your games in the same manner as you do with court filings ... that's progress ...
better idea, why don't you get back to us when you, Qualcomm, teamrep and Farmwald can agree that the found-to-infringe parts are 1) continuous mixers; or 2) voltage samplers; or 3) d2d
What I WILL do from now on to show willing is to regularly highlight comments from balanced observers .....
I feel so unsatisfied by the latest Farmy drive-by. Nothing but conclusory statements. No personal attacks against JP ... come-on, boy, we've waited over two months since the phase one verdict for ... THIS - THAT'S ALL YOU GOT?
So tell us O' Great One, according to you, are the Qualcomm's found-to-infringe parts:
1) Continuous Mixers, as per Qualcomm and Fud? or
2) Voltage Samplers, as per Teamrep? or
3) D2D, as per the verdict?
I can't wait for your crystal-clear, unqualified answer, but I bet you wish I'd hold my breath, eh, Shredvauld?
Who cares? You can't possibly articulate why a different markman would matter - but go ahead and try to provide an explicit scenario ... Qualcomm couldn't do it
So what? Not single piece of prior art came close to the anticipation standard ... expert plugging-in his own values ... puleeeeesz, give me a break
Why would the Fed Circuit overturn based on a "rule of the thumb" that wasn't even accepted by the jury? You have a citation you are relying on to say so? Please link. Thanks