I believe they said early 2015 BUT possibly end of 2014. Either way, I would like to hear something about sales efforts. I am not in this for the Infringement action, though it does obviously affect me.
And thank you for helping me decide to hold on to my shares from .80; you guys really had my back!
Oh Gracious fud.fighter2, thank you so very much for considering me, the great unwashed mass of investor. When I made the investment in ParkerVision I asked myself, " Will there be a hero to save me?" And, there was. It was YOU fud. You saved me from my risk calculations and from my desire to anticipate future prognostications of anonymous yahoo finance post. Oh dear Gawd, thank you for your efforts.
This seems like a very real possibility for QCOM and a massive loss of potential royalties.
I wont give odds because I am not an actuary or an IP attorney but it seems like a QCOM competitor could skate royalties for a long, long time before QCOM could really do anything about it.
It could even present a fertile short opportunity in QCOM. How great would THAT be?
"Qualcomm erects a strawman, arguing that ParkerVision is now taking the
position on appeal that any product with a switch necessarily meets the “sampling”
limitations. RedBr.69. ParkerVision never made any such suggestion. To the
contrary, ParkerVision’s description of the testimony and other evidence that
showed the sampling limitations were performed by Qualcomm’s products spans at
least four pages of the brief and involves more than the mere presence of a switch.
Actual Document: page 38.
"Specifically, in May 2004, a Qualcomm engineer named Seyfi Bazarjani, who
studied ParkerVision’s technology in 1999, stated he would “set up a meeting with
Chuck [Wheatley] to go over parker vision [sic] approach and see if we can make
it work.” A2703. This “next generation radio receiver” (id.) was released in the
accused products in 2006. "
I am curios, did QC claim that they had been working on any of this close to these time frames, and in particular between 99' and 04'? I would think(as a very LAY person) that they would have toted out everything they had worked on that would have led them to the accused products PRIOR to exposure to '[that] generation radio receiver..".
I actually like reading what the shorts write. It is when they start declaring what is GOING to occur in the future that I tune them out.. When my fellow longs get declaratory I actually worry more.
wall, would you briefly explain "post trial willful inf...."?
Does that somehow imply that the accused infringer is no longer "non-willful" in their infringement under some set of circumstances determined by the appellate?
It does ". . .feel bad to have lost money. . ." but I am not a ". . sore loser. . .", nor have I tried to sucker anyone. I am just someone who made a very risky investment that has lost a lot of value. Should I have sold at any point prior to today? Of course. But I chose to hold. Nothing I read on an anonymous website will make me buy more OR sell. I have however learned quite a bit from BOTH sides. Pretty sure no sweatshop-boiler room-pump or dump operation is paying for that kind of ambiguity.The truth is that none of us knows what is going to happen but we have made our bets and must wait to see.It is that simple.
Then again, FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch a Total of $6 Million for Reg SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures in October. There will be more to come.
lawfighter, I do not understand much about the appeals process but my very limited understanding is that the only things on the table to address are what was already introduced, how it was introduced, and the court's action relative to those two. I know I am not going get a clean "Moot Court" example here but would you mind pointing me towards anything similar and applicable that might help me gain a more clear picture?
I try to tell myself this: You DID buy in the .80s, BY NOT selling there.
Little consolation I know, but I take the good where I can.
You would think the super ethical bash crew would call out such shenanigans. Wth all the mention of price movement vs. reduced short interest, what is up there guys?
I wonder what MF could possibly want. He is so hateful and insulting to PV and shareholders I would imagine he would rather lose money than face. Could he settle AND save face?