.Any guesses on how many phones would be considered a minimum build from a contract manufacturer like Foxconn (but much smaller)?
Are you short? What would you honestly cover for right now?
Are you long? What is your best case scenario and timeline?
At least not yet. Furthermore, there is any invalidation it will be what, 3 of them? Really more like 2.xxx of them.
Yes, that affects possible royalties on Parkervision 1 . Have I missed something here? Is all of the hatred and vitriol stuck on 2.xxx patents?
Do yourselves, and us rubes a favor and short some more. It will be cleansing.
The odds are not known as the cases that have preceded this one are not identical and therefore not subject to identical outcome.
Team, I have minimal problem with you making your case. However when you make posts with "har dee har har" or the like, it truly shows your mindset.
Look a thumbs down.......CLEARLY this person does not want you to think for yourself.
You should just accept what is posted and buy/sell as instructed.
Nobody, long or short, has a freakin clue how the court cases will turn out.
Without a doubt, read what is posted, THEN, use your own intellect to sort out
the wheat from the chaff......there will be much to sort.
Many parties post here as though they have the defacto inside trac as to what is
happening; they do not.
Expert analysis of prior court cases is a DIME A DOZEN on this board. Everyone here
makes out to be an expert to such an extent that it is laughable that ANYONE of such
skill would spend time here when they could clearly be charging hundreds of dollars
per hour for their expertise.
The amount of pure manure posted here rivals the Duda Family Celery Farm's total
investment holdings, along with the excrement.
Do yourself a favor; IF you are in any way considering an investment in ParkerVision,
pay them a visit. You may find that they are a fly by night operation that is far too risky
to hold in your portfolio. You may find that they are a IP investment that is long in the
tooth and has little to gain by winning the cases they are currently involved in. You may
find that they have a patent portfolio that is worth a few cents as is but in the right
combination is worth a few scheckles .
No matter what, research for yourself. Visit Parkervision. Ask questions. Don't be coerced
into buying OR selling.
They post in an orchestrated effort to scare off potential investors(few) and to psyche those of us holding into selling.
I have already accepted that it will be a near miracle to right this ship. Why would I sell into the shorting?
The potential from here to zero is much less for a current short than it is for a current long. Somehow they just don't care. Again, good for them. I'd call it a stalemate, one that will NOT be decided here but by the courts.
In the mean time, I picked up some really cheap shares IF/F PRKR gets their shinola together and actually moves some componentry.
PS, going to DC in May?
Wall, I am pretty sure they just don't get it. We know the risk we have taken and we are prepared to ride it out. If JP can sell from the shelf, he should. These chumps are no more bystanders than lobbyists are. They have an agenda. Good for them.
So do I, mine is to hold on to my shares until they pay off a condominium. If that does not happen, oh well.
The "smoke" they blow is so thick all you can do is walk around it on your way to the courthouse.
The only thing for certain here is that NOBODY HERE KNOWS which way this goes.
According to Mike Birch with Jax Daily Record, Poehlman claims that conponents were "purchased". That implies at least $8 in revs should be on the next q. That is all I want to know.
Not even worth asking. He should sell whatever shares he can if that it what keeps us afloat. People will be more upset with bankruptcy. Sucks but if he cannot sell anything that is the likely alternative. I'd vote for it in a second.
"107. As an initial matter, I would like to correct a false statement made
on page 43 of the ’551 Petition. Here, Petitioner asserts that “Estabrook describes a
direct conversion receiver where the LO control frequency is the same as the
carrier frequency.” (’551 petition, p. 43.) This statement is clearly incorrect, as
Estabrook discloses no such thing. "
So, does the 9Mhz diff convincingly illustrate that Estabrook does in fact NOT teach down conversion to baseband?
Also see page 35(Item 73) of Exhibit 2024(Dr. Fette's declaration re. Dr. Abidi's use of eq 5.7 as it applies to 551'
"73. Dr. Abidi’s noise figure calculations appear to be fundamentally
flawed. His calculations are also difficult to analyze since Dr. Abidi’s noise figure
analysis provides little more than equation 5.7, which he appears to have derived
specifically for the purpose of his declaration since this is not a standard or
commonly used equation. "
"74. In my opinion, Dr. Abidi made several fundamental errors in his
noise figure analysis. First, it appears he relied on voltage ratios, without
consideration of proper impedances, instead of available power ratios. Second, Dr.
Abidi’s definition omitted any signal to noise ratio based on available source
power. This is a mistake."
I assume it is the PTAB that evaluates these declarations and evidence supporting them.
Could someone explain the "available power" ? Is it simply that 5.7 disallows for "proper impedances"?
On pages 55-57 of the reply, Mike Lee asserts an Office Patent Trials Board rule regarding admissibility of additional evidence or arguments.
"It is too late now for Petitioner to point to additional disclosures in the
references, proffer new evidence or make new arguments. Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (“[A] reply that raises a new issue or
belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. . . .
Examples . . . include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for
the . . . unpatentability of an original . . . claim, and new evidence that could have
been presented in a prior filing.”) "
If this is the case, AND PTAB agrees, is 518' safe from future challenge?
Response on ptabtrials site.