LS2 matters much less now than it did previously: Operators are making use of over 60MHz of AWS and other mid-band spectrum. Some is in use currently. Some more is going into use this year and over the next 2 years. What LS2 has to offer now swims in a sea of available spectrum hosted by sharks.
LS2 should have done this prior to being rejected by the FCC on their last proposal. I read LS2's proposal and surrounding responses to the FCC from the GPS industry and internal discussions: LS2 had a bone-headed proposal that while being within the general guidelines of the FCC was not sensitive to the concerns of GPS interference. I posted that LS2 should have proposed use of smallcells at low power for use in the spectrum closest to GPS bands. They might also have proposed additional methods to avoid interference such as using the nearby band for uplink only, again a measure to reduce power that might bleed over into the GPS band via harmonics. Chances are that a new proposal will include at least some of these options in addition to measures in the original proposal to move some high sensitivity GPS at LS2's cost to other bands (agriculture is one such use).
So you are hearing that CAFC might consider Parkervision's evidence as sufficient to sustain the jury verdict, overturning Judge Dalton's ruling on JMOL. I do not understand how you can read into the evidence in that way: the simulation cannot be merely 'based on documentation' such that PV's attorney's do not even try to purport it as an equivalent to the actual infringing circuit. Instead they told CAFC they should rely on the jury verdict despite not having acceptable empirical evidence. Electronic circuits, particularly this one, much replicate circuit and values exactly. They cannot be a mere approximation. And the circuit cannot be something that is relied upon by the expert witness while itself is not put into evidence. What a crock. you know better than that.
"However, he did conduct "simulations" based on Q's confidential design documents ".. Both Judge Dalton and CAFC questioned PV's attorney's about why Prucnal had NOT done simulations on Qualcomm's circuit. PV has not contested the assertion by Qualcomm that Prucnal's simulation was on PV' circuit and not on Q's. Doing a simulation on PV's circuit is not valid for proof of infringement.
Sprint has been locked in a range between 4.40 and 5.40 over the first half of this year. The stock has recently set a narrower trend channel with a lower ceiling level near 4.80.
The net technical indicators have turned more bearish. This corresponds with the highest level in short interest since almost a year ago, reaching about 98M shares despite the stock having moved down recently. That indicates short sellers expect further downside. Given the past history of short interest in S, that adds to bearish indicators.
Sprint has yet to meet network development based market challenges with the level of success that shapes up as a favorable ROI. Financial analysts have increased forecasted losses for 2016. While the pattern of financial ANALysts is generally to be overly optimistic on long term forecasts and then pull them lower as the next year approaches, the degree of downward revisions is bearish imo.
Claure is taking a lot of swings at the plate. While a Bravo is in order for doing more than sitting on the bench, the results of the many initiatives has yet to show clear signs of improvements in financial performance. Subscribers may be less in angst of Sprints service but are apparently not enamored of it. Claure's public hits on T-Mo may be a counter of Legere's slap to his face but they ring hollow. T-Mo has sales mojo, Sprint has yet to show such results and analysts remain skeptical that whatever subscriber gains might be achieved are sufficient payment for ongoing capex outlays.
S may soon break this support level to head towards the next near 4.29. S is a structured sell: set stop loss orders if it breaks this support level. Short selling at this level? sure but some of the move has taken place from the 5.40 level to here. Stop-loss orders on short sales is one way in which small investors often have an advantage over larger ones. Stop-loss cover orders.
What rumors and when? Why the 'Duh' level post?
Article headline from October 2014: "Carlos Slim's América Móvil Says It's Not Interested In Buying T-Mobile"
T-Mobile's viewpoint on the need for the FCC to set a more even playing field among the wireless operators by setting aside more precious 600MHz spectrum is shared by the DOJ. DOJ may not agree with T-Mobile's various suggested plans for allocation of spectrum, however, the regulatory arm has made it clear in the past and more specifically in the recent letter to the FCC that Verizon and AT&T have become borderline monopolists (duopolists) and, thus, regulators are obliged to take formative steps to prevent further erosion of competitive forces by ensuring open access to spectrum and developing markets.
The WSJ and some other tabloids are quick to jump to conclusions that are at odds with the stance of regulators on these matters. That is short sighted and bullheaded thinking.
Least they forget that monopolies tend to form when critical inputs into the competitive arena can become dominated to the extent that they are leveraged to control market outcomes. The raw resource of spectrum is licensed in the public trust. The people of the USA 'own' all spectrum. The FCC under DOJ and Congressional oversight is responsible for setting policies and granting rights to make use of spectrum in the public interest. Part of that is through licensing spectrum to fulfill the goal of best use through competitive markets. In doing so, regulators must look at not just the current scenario but also how trends foretell how markets are shaping up into the future. While grant of licenses to operators under a bidding system ensures reaping of immediate cash for the government coffer, it can aid the process of consolidation of power through leveraged consolidation of the matrix of markets and spectrum.
While wsj may sum up the situation as T-Mo pressing for undue grants from government regulators, Verizon and AT&T have reached a level of concentration of markets and influence that has crossed, in several measures, the threshold for being considered monopolies. T-Mo is right.
The tutorial is a crock. It is a better crock than what Parkervision had developed in the past with investor's money.. so you can take pride knowing that you are getting more bang for your buck in false and misleading technical chicanery than in the past. Congratulations.
No, the US legal system in which areas of specialization such as IPR, intellectual property rights, has evolved to evidentiary grounding that has been established through the years in concert with international laws. You can elect to stay ignorant of the facts just as you apparently have of the overall business and take your chances.
On your brane universe the laws of everything, starting with the laws of physics, apparently work differently than in the real world. What is the stock price for PRKR in your universe? People in this one have lost their money already.
The expansion of the mostly smallcell deployments to 70k or more makes sense. The choice of Nokia and Airspan also makes good sense: Nokia modular and smallcell base stations and Airspan multimode/multi-band smallcells are among the most mature, flexible and economical suite of products on the market.
That is now a good choice that comes too late to distinguish itself.. to stand out from the crowd to easily afford capturing marketshare as it might have once done. But it can't be faulted as part of the solution to move forward. Solution to what remains the question. At this juncture, Sprint is seeking a solution to achieve some growth in subscribers and head towards profitability which has remained a moving target.. its been supposed to happen starting with Network Vision. Going on three years latter profitability has been again pushed out.. with financial analysts raising the loss projections for 2016.
"I'd like to see the numbers". Its too bad that Sprintsy won't tell investors enough to know if they are (again) smoking something funny to come up with what might turn out to be just more unfulfilled hype. "Show me the money" or at least the business plan to get there. What is it with businesses that hide behind inuendo.. tell investors the details of what is being planned and the costs. That is what public companies should be doing.. not this bull shisa feel good crapola.
Well, my opinion is that you are simply wrong, so we will again have to see who is right... Parkervision, tampa, yourself... or me, Farmwald, Fud.Fighter et al. Thus far the wins are stacking up in our favor.. and since I expected PV to 'win' their storybook case with the jury, I still am running a winning streak in the judgement of what is determining the decisions in the legal and business case for Parkervision.
One of these days you may win ... but not on this I assure you.
Fellow idiot: the way software patents are tested depends on the nature of the software. Sometimes software describes 'business methods' or human interface issues that are depicted by logic diagrams, pictures or drawings (as i the Apple v Samsung case involving the front landing screen placement of icons etc.), or the software can be much more complex, dealing with encryption algorithms for example that can be modeled in software. Sometimes the actual code is examined. There have been cases in which companies copied portions of software so exactly, for example, that it contained not only copies of working code but also copies of errors, misspelling in comment sections of the software, or other observations. Some cases hinge on running of the software that shows how it operates in comparison to how the patented method operates. The main point is that the method of proof fits the details of the patented method and alleged infringing products.
Your contention that QCOM offered no expert or evidence is pure bunk. If that were so, then why hasn't PV's lawyers asserted that as a defense? You have to be on a different brane of reality from even PV's own attorneys
I should have acknowledged the importance of this case reference yesterday: this is among cases cited in judge Dalton's ruling in favor of Qualcomm on JMOL on noninfringement. It is a clear example how expert testimony a. can stray from what should be obvious to the jury as the 'truth', and b. shows that evidence suited to the means of hte technology must be provided to support expert opinion, graphs, drawings etc. It is not sufficient to merely put on the best show but to put on the most convincing display of facts.
We are all idiots.. only some of us don't know it.
Overbrook is wrong because the courts hold his point of view to be wrong. He can say he has reviewed the literature and court cases on the subject and came up with the belief that juries can decide patent cases based on unsupported claims made by experts, but that is not how the Judge in the DC decision has ruled. The judges in the CAFC appeal case have asked for a showing of evidence. PV's attorneys cannot respond to such a request because it is not there. Instead, they fell back to the stance that the jury was within bounds to decide based on expert testimony. However, when I have read the precedent over the years, starting well before PV sued anybody, what I found was that the evidence required in patent cases is determined by the nature of the patents: what classification/field they are in, what are the norms are for verification of methods in that field. For circuits that can be simulated using commonly available software or for which example circuits can be built and tested that closely approximate the design of the alleged infringing circuit or instances where the actual product can be put under test by both sides the rules are clearly enough spelled out. This was exactly what Judge Dalton wrote in his ruling on JMOL that overturned the jury decision.
Overbrook has posted his assessment on this issue. His bet goes against the DC judge and against common sense. If that is trusted, then patent cases would revolve around who has the most convincing storyline, best drawings, and expert witnesses who are willing to say what is needed to convince a jury instead of being based on the side able to marshal proof of actual infringement/harm. Overbrook is wrong. CAFC and IPR will rule within months so we shall see if this case has been transferred to that alternate brane universe.. even after a couple glasses of wine I highly doubt it.
You reading of case law and rules of evidence as interpreted in patent cases is wrong.
Rather than argue this again, readers need simply weight what I have said about it and what you say against how the DC Judge Dalton's ruling that mentions evidence requirements and the oral arguments that indicate that CAFC will follow requirements for evidence rather than what you say should be the determining factors, namely that uries can decide however they wish so long as some paid idiot says so.
Expert witness testimony must be corroborated by evidence. Prucnal performed his paid duties in laying out a theoretical case for how PRKR's technology is alleged to work in general applications. However, that is merely an academic opinion. When confronted with the details of Qualcomm's circuit, the one actually accused of infringement, not a circuit designed by Parkervision, Prucnal had to tell the truth, namely that the baseband is generated at the output of the mixer and the TX capacitor is arranged such that high frequency signals such as the carrier and higher order harmonics and noise can enter it while the baseband sees the TX as an open/high impedance circuit and thus 'flies by'.
You may get fellow long shysters to buy it.. but neither Judge Dalton or CAFC judges have bought it... they have asked PRKR to explain Prucnal's admissions or to show the process of energy transfer sampling they say happens but was not brought into evidence... and McKool Smith, Parkervison, Sterne remain silent because there IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
What Prucnal said in his rehearsed testimony to questions from PV's attorney's is contradicted by the evidence and his own testimony and has never been resurrected. Upon failing that, PV's position has back-pedalled to the position that expert witness testimony is all that is required. You guys continue to pursue that position even though its clear that CAFC is not buying into it and, if you got your heads out from where the sun doesn't shine, would acknowledge that the established legal precedent in patent cases clearly requires evidence to support claims of infringement by an expert witness or otherwise.
Da problemo is 1. you are discussing a document that is outside of the case and cannot be used in the case. 2. Parkervision has not provided such measurements of waveforms, or other acceptable evidence which I had said was necessary since before judge Dalton ruled that there was not sufficient evidence the jury can reasonably use to rule in favor of Parkervision.
It is nice that PV, after losing the case, has come up with a white paper that portends to show how their technology works. To be used in a case, such evidence would have to be subject to examination of the defendants experts and the court and cross examination of PV's experts.
The white paper is a fair attempt to paint red lipstick on the pig. It comes too late to be examined and used in PV 1. Under scrutiny of those expert in the field that white paper will fall apart if used in PV 2.
Apples and rhinoceroses market comparisons.
It is common for articles to jump to conclusions, using pumped up headlines "Huge competitors will fight it out to the death by offering 20 megatons of bandwidth!!!"
Wait a second. Fiber optic has captured less than 5% overall marketshare despite many years of headlines exclaiming how Verizon, Comcast, Google, AT&T or Joe's Beanery and Fiber Optic Company will offer it to millions of consumers. The hype starts with the words 'covered' or 'offered to' millions of users. Verizon has offered FiOS fiber optic to millions of users.. but after years of efforts pulled back after netting only 1.2 M subs... a fraction of a percent of the US population. What fiber operators call 'covered' usually means 'runs by'... a fiber optic that runs down the street or a nearby street is considered covering the household or business. However, the cost of bringing the fiber optic to the home premises can run from $1,200 to $3,000. Which is why Verizon is catching fire in NYC as not complying with their contract with the city to extend service to more consumers.
Offering theoretical limits of 2Gbps makes for brilliant headlines. The reality is that the service is pricey and will result in one out of 100 households having it. In a city like Miami/Dade county area, the density might be as high #$%$ out of 100 households... in some places higher. How does that compare to or impact mobile operators that you may have investments? Mobile saturation has already reached over 100% in terms of number of subscriptions per population. The data rates and cost per data is much better on fiber optic.. but the impact on mobile is low because not many people will buy it.. and those who do will also buy mobile service... because they tend to be the more affluent consumers.
They and the rest of the industry have understood why AT&T's bid to acquire DTV was likely to be approved while other mergers, including T's attempt to acquire T-Mobile failed: DTV is in an industry that is considered to be headed toward long-term obsolescence. Thus the leading question of consolidation of markets is lessened as a concern.
Mergers between ICT, information and communications technology, companies rough listing of probability:
1. Serving different market needs, such as mobile communications and satellite television in which one of the industries is destined to become obsolete or marginalized over time.
2. As in 1. except both segments will remain viable over time but which offer advantages to consumers if allowed to merge.
3. As in 1 but the segments the merging companies operate are distinct and not expected to offer much advantage to consumers except, perhaps, speculative improvements in capital and service efficiencies.
4. Companies that are in like business segments. The arguments for allowing the merger within segments of the converging ICT industry is to allow the combined entity better economics and ability to innovate against the already consolidated market leaders who, arguably have reached the status of 'duopolists' who are no longer pressured to reduce pricing or innovate commensurate with advances in technology and the ability to do so that their position should otherwise provide.
Dependent issues such as acquisition through auctions or amalgamation of spectrum can often be overlaid on the above to judge how regulators view pending decisions such as rules for auctions or sale of spectrum.