Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

teamrep 627 posts  |  Last Activity: 10 minutes ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep 10 minutes ago Flag

    insights to new methods to measure, correct, extend, and compliment signaling that has combined with other necessary or complimentary technologies to be enabling. The industry would not be where it is today without Qualcomm's 35,000+ patents. The industry has been modestly side-channeled with no cooperation in exposing the methodology in a straightforward manner that is able to be proven.

    That is why all judges hearing this case are obliged to rule and question as they have.

    If tampa cannot answer intelligently to those questions asked over the past 2+ years, why do we all waste our time reading his posts? Maybe he wants us to admit he has confounded us with stupidity and give up.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep 16 minutes ago Flag

    As I wrote that I was picturing FrankenTampa's brain cavity: it is hollowed out or has a solution with a relative permittivity to serve as a storage media for charge. Perhaps it stores more than just a charge, a 'signal'... two week ago, for a long time, it was carrier wave energy that, unexplainably, is transferred into a astronomically high SNR of baseband reconstruction. The erroneous assumption of Parkervision and Tampa plus assundry brainless morphs is that Parkervision is not required to explain how their method works in a a way that is confirmed by normal means.

    Each and every time that PV's attorney's have attempted to explain the inequities, first in the DC court in JMOL hearings and oral arguments, and then in the documents and oral hearing at CAFC, McKool/Parkervision/Sterne failed absolutely.

    What does it matter what Tampa says if he does not answer the questions raised by Judge Dalton and confirmed as the line of resolution by CAFC? What Tampa, Fud.Fighter or teamep have to say that is not to the point or to address and push aside sidesteps is irrelevant.

    Parkervision must have provided proof of infringement or PRKR 1 is lost. No new evidence if there were new evidence, which there is not, can be brought into the case. Any reasonable person, particularly one who stands up to say they do know what is what, now admits that since no evidence can be submitted that PRKR has lost.

    On Parkervision II, the chances are made more remote, compounding the levels of proof needed by expanding to multiple products, instances and breadth of applications. The level of proof for each instance multiplies to an astronomical level. This is clearly an attempt at extortion which Qualcomm will not stand because it would jeopardize their major source of income, their own portfolio of honest patents that, even if many are minor contributions, as a whole have been enabling of the wireless industry. Qualcomm has such notable thinkers as Viterbi who contributed con't

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep 47 minutes ago Flag

    Smokescreen alert!!!

    FrankenTampa now has 25% duty cycle stored in his brain, coursing in on the ETS into his capacitor (flat charge storage media called his cell rotted brain). Next week it will be some other equally disjointed concoction.

    Fess up FrankenTampa: either show the evidence deemed by the courts at large and Judge Dalton of the District Court circuit in specific or admit by your sleazy tactic of posting incongruous assertions not involved, or only to a minor degree, in the legal process.

    You are so lame you stink worse than Jeffrey Parker and Sterne.

  • Miami Florida is like Dallas, Phoenix, and some other showcase cities.. almost flat and not heavily forested... and the local governments tend to work well with operators. Sprint's problem is "Lumpy Gravy" - coverage that sucks hind tit. Doing well in Miami is a good thing.. for Miami. It proves nothing in the overall context of the competitive challenge to do well everywhere.. OK, not everywhere but in more places .. or, at least, as many places as competitors.. and to not break the bank doing so. Spintsy wintsy has to prove they can do the deed in the majority of locations competitors cover... not just lumpy gravy locations like Miami.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM

    LOL! You loser!!!

    You have lost the case, period.

    Your explanations are back drafting attempts to patch up failed Parkervision strategy. It failed buzzard. You can quibble over what I write, trying to use that as an excuse for PV failing in court.. is only a feeble attempt to divert the discussion from what Fud.Fighter has pointed out very deliberately.. this case was determined based on PV's failure to provide actual evidence of infringement. Your points skirt that, coming up with banal references taken out of context.

    What are you trying to do? Convince a few idiots who might remain gullible enough to buy this fart stock? If you are trying to make a valid point, you fail entirely. Even if the point about 25% duty cycling was valid, which it laughably is not, you must connect each and every dot (point) spelled out for proof of infringement. You/Parkervision cannot do that.

    Why do you insist on being a #$%$? Anyone following your posts knows your shyster jumping around from one failed point to the next.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM

    Wrong, just wrong. Your definition of what is and what is not a double balanced mixer is a crock. Mixers have evolved over the past 20 years.

    You just do not understand how ridiculous your statements are. I can picture myself sitting down next to the inventor of CMOS receivers/sensors that are used in very exacting instruments such as oscilloscopes and OTDRs, optical time-domain reflectometers, discussing this exact subject - use of different sampling periods. The use in quad input double-balanced mixers is only one example of sampling of signals in which sampling phase timing and duration are concerned. Parkervision's patent are not on mixers per se. The core D2D EST claims read to a signal recovery method that is claimed to apply to almost everything FD Sorrells imagination can wander to.

    You are so full of misinformation. You should admit you limitation and speak to what you understand... which is how to lose money believing in tech stocks.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM

    Here is another truly ignorant post. PRKR longs have a history of seizing on erroneous assertions like this: "THIS ALONE PROVES QUALCOMM ACCUSED PRODUCTS CANNOT BE USING A PRIOR ART double balanced mixer-setup in any mode. Prior art mixers DO NOT USE 25% DUTY CYCLE OPERATION! PERIOD." To believe this one must disbelieve papers written about double-balanced mixers that describe 25% duty cycle.

    However, the assertion that using 25% duty cycle infringes on PV's patents is false. PV does not hold patents on use of 25% duty cycle, PERIOD (idiot). Each and every of the claim elements determined in the much ballyhooed Markman must be shown to be used.

  • Where are you getting your information? Hope you are not relying on Yahoo's outdated info. NASDAQ has among the best and most up-to-date free stock information: it shows an average price target of about 4.90 for Sprint (S). The momentum of analysts forecasts is down: 2016 EPS has moved down from a loss of $0.30 to a loss of $0.47.. so much for the overall impact of "Claure's disruptive momentum"

    ... again, long investors should either trade the ups and downs or wait for the hyped up 'disruptive momentum' to show itself. Claure is overseeing changes at Sprint. Some of them have the potential, which can be an easily abused word, to shift sales momentum in enough of a positive direction that it actually delivers a positive ROI for a change, (yea really). However, investors should be more than a wee bit skeptical about momentum: thus far the momentum is resulting in projections for increased spending despite cuts in other areas. Investors should not forget the basic rationale for investing in an enterprise: to get more out than you put in... its called an ROI, return on investment. Unfortunately, the NASDAQ/NYSE do not reward investors for momentum in hype, board posts, spending that results in losses, favorable tabulations of network performance, etc. Instead, there is this thing called financial results... for some nutty reason markets expect it.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM

    Wrong, wrong, wrong... bankrupting wrong.

    " One must study the circuits operation dictated by the source and load impedances, the capacitor value, and the switching rate and aperture." Wrong. One can have the following elements that are found in the prior art: low impedance load and small cap value, sampling at various parts of the cycle and durations (sampling periods) or using variable sampling, 25% sampling duty cycle, other duration of duty cycle, I and Q signals that are not continuous, ie. are sampling of the signal.

    You noob!!! Sampling of signals was done years before PV. You fall into the trap of claiming much prior art. All independent claims must be used in the method described in PV's patents before there is infringement.

    What you describe is insane. That makes half+ of RF in the world infringing... even though the designs originated several years before this little puke company thought of getting in cahoots with Sterne to ponzi up the runaway patent system and stock market.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 6:22 PM Flag

    Just because you keep repeating does not make it so. Your failure to understand what is required in a patent trial is comical to me... not so much to those who have lost almost all of their money.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 3:54 PM Flag

    It is up to the plaintiff to present their case that includes the accepted forms of proof that the defendant Qualcomm infringes. Q presented sufficient evidence, enough to get PV's expert witness to concede on all major points of the defense including how a mixer operates including how Q's mixer operates, namely to produce the baseband. You may not have found that crowd pleasing by your biased, ignorant standards, but it has worked out to win the case. I had thought that Qualcomm's case strategy was designed to set up for an appeal to CAFC where the rules of evidence would have swung in Q's favor and the bogus drama staged by Parkervision would, by and large, be cast aside. However, Judge Dalton, who longs once were in love with, had the wisdom to understand that Parkerscamavision has no evidence to make their storyline case stick with anyone other than rubes like yourselves.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 3:46 PM Flag

    What part of 'burden of proof' do you fools fail to understand?

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 28, 2015 10:11 PM Flag

    Even though the 'mobile phone revolution' is about 20 years old, it is constantly evolving to encompass more capabilities and services. There are windows of opportunity that open up that can come closed after time as the jump on knowledge becomes more universal or is engulfed within the standards, and as major inputs and market change. The spectrum environment has changed dramatically over the past ten years: ten years ago the vision for the use of spectrum was based more on special use technologies and there was much less mobile spectrum available. The industry has been working at 'universal mobile telecommunications system, UMTS' which has morphed into LTE and with it the name has gone out of use. The goal remained - to build a framework of technologies that are layered on top or alongside each other upon which multiple types of services and devices can be built. LTE-Advanced has come a long way toward achieving that goal.. much further and with more room to evolve without the likelihood of being ripped out and replaced than was the case for 2G and 3G.

    Sprint's use of 2.5-2.6GHz has slowly evolved: they made use of proprietary tech from Hybrid Networks that was not up to the task and then moved to WiMAX out of the need to deploy.

    Sprint once had a '5 year window of opportunity' per former CEO because no other operator held wideband spectrum. Now all other of the top 4 have wideband (20MHz+ channels). That makes S's band 41 much less of a way to stand out from the competition. The imbalance in spectrum is now somewhat of a liability in that it costs more to deploy.

    Also more spectrum (AWS) has been licensed with even more, albeit in less desireable 3.5 band, due to be made available.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 28, 2015 6:44 PM Flag

    I had to comment on your questions to noob: "My recollection is that Dr. Prucnal stated that the fact that the mixer's on Q's schematics had switches in them - was an indication of infringement. "

    You should look up among the large number of references on mixers: switches are used to switch the LO, local oscillator, signal.

    Switches are a standard feature of today's receivers. Duh.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 27, 2015 4:56 PM Flag

    No. The FCC rules are that no operator can hold licenses for more than 1/3 of the spectrum in either the low, mid, or high-band spectrum. That correctly categorizes the spectrum based on how it can be leveraged to control the overall market landscape. The categories of low-high-mid spectrum are somewhat logarithmic: as you move up in frequency there is more spectrum: the low band encomapses roughly 800MHz between about 300MHz to 1.1GHz. The mid band covers ~1.5GHz about double that amount and the high band covers at least 3GHz with the upward bounds being pushed out as MMIC and other advances make it more feasible to use spectrum above 3.5GHz.

    Sprint holds direct licenses to only about 1/3 of the 2.5-2.6GHz band 41 spectrum. ~2/3 is sub-licensed.

    Sprint can acquire as much low band spectrum as they can likely get and it has no impact on their holdings of high band spectrum. If, however, Sprint were to merge with either T-Mobile or DISH, then the 1/3 guidelines for each band would come into play. When Softbank acquired Sprint, AT&T and to some degree Verizon put pressure on the FCC to 're-screen' Sprint's band 41 2.5-2.6Ghz spectrum. Sprint successfully argued that the spectrum was not on an equal footing as lower bands for direct mobile use and that there are difficulties in its use due to much being sub-leased in pockets around the country. The FCC did not re-screen the high band, letting Sprint retain well above the 1/3 cap on the low and mid bands. However, if a merger occurred, the FCC would consider the consequences of the aggregated holdings.. having a competitive position in low and mid bands in combination with combined marketshare (T-mobile case) might result in the large holding in high band being a competitive trump card. As I write this I half think that I shouldn't because you and others might blow it out of proportions for S's current situation.

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's PV5870 Demodulator

    by longprkr Jun 26, 2015 6:07 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 26, 2015 9:05 PM Flag

    Suckers.. PV had to produce a product to sell to somebody to keep the long running ponzi scheme going. Bernie Madoff should have been so skilled. Just when things are reaching the end of the rope and PRKR needs more money to continue for what they might guess, if lucky to survive so long, to be another four-five years of litigation, PRKR pulls yet another fuzzy wuzzy rabbit out of their hat. If this turns out to be like the much touted sales of WiFi, of previous chips, of deals with various 'partners', the sales will be zero or a short term drop in the bucket. I suspect that the product that claims to use D2D/ETS is a conventional mux/demux. For all the time and money PV has had to develop something that works, it could even be a darn good one. So, they can join companies that have hundreds to thousands of such products on their shelves... selling in large volumes... that is the way RF companies make a living in this brane of reality.

  • Reply to

    Is it "reasonable" to count tacit admissions?

    by fud.fighter2 Jun 24, 2015 10:20 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 26, 2015 8:54 PM Flag

    Tampa calls the clear evidence 'stitch soundbites together'.

    The admissions are very clear. Furthermore, they are in concert with the evidence in the case. For Prucnal to have said otherwise would have required Parkervision to have 1. a simulation of Qualcomm's Magellan circuit rather than what Prucnal had used, a simulation of a Parkervision circuit, as he and all of PV's attorneys admitted to Judge Dalton and to the panel of CAFC judges. 2. A demonstration of the Qualcomm circuit built using discrete components/chips. Judge Dalton mentions this option of valid proof. 3. Actual measurement of Qualcomm's circuit. This was apparently not possible. In some instances parts of IC circuit can be probed to measure transient voltage levels, and capacitor and resistor values can be estimated by reverse engineering. It sometimes is possible to measure waveforms within an IC. Some circuits have probe points built in and sometimes pinned out on the chip. That is often done to provide testing and process tuning. In this type of circuit that would not be expected.. if it could be done it would not be easy.

    Parkervision struck out on providing a valid form of evidence. I have posted that PV cannot provide such confirmation.. and despite dog and pony show whitepapers, that remains the case.

    Why did PV screw things up in the QCOM trial? Because that is their stick. PV cannot provide evidence in court that can be put under examination by defendants because Q's and other's circuit do not infringe... and PV's claims for how their tech works does not hold water. What works is prior art that has been refined for over 15 years. And also what works is the success of highly integrated mixed-signal semiconductor processes that reduces noise, increases receiver sensitivity... all without the hocus pocus of the other brane world Energy Transfer Sampling woozie woo woo a new term for Fairy Dust Sorrells mystical technology.

  • Reply to

    SPRINT MUST MERGE

    by robertjg7 Jun 26, 2015 2:08 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 26, 2015 8:27 PM Flag

    That is not how mobile networks work: who "leases space to content providers"? OTT, over the top, has emerged as a large part of the growth of mobile traffic. Verizon and AT&T and a few small operators wanted the right to sell optimized service to OTT players like NetFlix, HuLu but can't do that as a prefered service due to the FCC open Internet rules. They can help OTT providers provide better service by offering co-location of cache servers and routing optimizations. And they can charge them for that work. However, they cannot (not in the open anyway) prefer that OTT's traffic over others running through the rest of the network.

    The major OTT providers have already used distributed servers. YouTube, for example has, last I checked, six server farm locations around the US. I don't know if they have placed servers or caching servers inside of operators network... that could be done in major metro areas so that the operators RAN pulls data locally. Or it could be at Sprint C-RAN servers.

    However, where is the money in OTT other than for the sale of broadband capacity at competitive monthly rates? Operators do not charge OTT service providers for the traffic itself.. in fact they cannot do so under the FCC rules.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 26, 2015 8:11 PM Flag

    The lower band spectrum has become much more expensive since old Sprint flubbed the opportunity to buy some at what now looks like bargain basement prices.

    Why buy 600MHz? Because 'the best spectrum is a mix of low, mid and high band' .. the same thing I said about 12 years ago. Sprint does need 600MHz but since the sibling of Softbank is clinically nearly bankrupt (by what still is taught in B school text books), Sprint may be stuck with a mess of 2.6GHz and too little money to buy an exploitable portion, which I figure is 20MHz in the 600Mhz band. What Euteneuer should man up to is that Sprint has limited financial flexibility and needs to make the best of what they can afford in hopes of getting the formula right enough to spur growth in subscribers and revenue.

    I think Sprint sounds disingenuous the way they come across. The company should be taking bold swings but also saying it like it is.. tough job ahead ... balls to the walls.

  • The DOJ sent a letter to the FCC asking it to consider rules for the upcoming 600MHz auction that would not hamper smaller participants. It warned (again) that Verizon and AT&T who hold about 75% of wireless industry marketshare stand to lock up greater control if allowed to dominate bidding for 600MHz spectrum.

    This stands to work in DISH's favor: The most economical and most customer pleasing way to build out a new mobile network is to start deploying in wideband (at least 20MHz by today's competitive expectations) of spectrum under 1GHz. Charlie might hope to get 20-40Mhz of spectrum if VZ and T are excluded from a larger portion. Currently the FCC plans to set aside about 30MHz for smaller players.

    What could DISH do with 600MHz? It could build a nationwide footprint network across 80% of the country for about 1/3 the cost of doing so in mid-band spectrum. If successful gaining subscribers and to supplement capacity in cities, DISH could bulk up capacity using mid-band AWS spectrum... or use it to deliver video services using newly available LTE multicast technology.

PRKR
0.3751+0.0001(+0.03%)Jun 30 4:00 PMEDT