That is more nonsensical speculation about how Google might spend, or rather, exhaust their resources acquiring a wireless infrastructure company.
The assumption is that owning an infrastructure company is necessary in order for Google to have access to a larger capacity of wireless broadband in the USA. What is the reasoning behind that? Is it really necessary for Google to own the networks their services need to run over? Or is it only necessary for Google to work with the competitive companies (forces) within the industry that push for open IP access?
What prevents Google from continuing to drive their business forward like they have in the past? G has not owned the Internet have they? Google does not own cable, DSL or wireless or the majority of fiber optic broadband infrastructure. On a global basis, G owns only a small fraction of 1% of of broadband yet the company is the largest search and Internet ad company in the world.
Yet Walter jumps, like so many others over the past six years, to the conclusion that Google wants to buy the companies they have ridden on, much of the time for free. That logic concludes it is necessary for G to acquire infrastructure companies to survive and grow.. otherwise the huge cost would make no sense at all. If that is the case, then Google would have to acquire similar companies in other parts of the world. That blows the logic out of the realms of possibility.
Google does not need to acquire the world's Internet infrastructure companies. To succeed G must do what all competitive companies must: find ways to compete most effectively. That does not include acquiring T-Mobile, DISH, Sprint or any combination of US operators. Or operators in India, Indonesia or elsewhere.
Google + S + TM using/developing a more comprehensive set of devices and services and coordinated use of networks can achieve much of what Google could want without most of the burdensome expense.
Sorry, that speculation leads nowhere. Zero
What is your point? You divert the conversation of a web board that is here for investors to exchange information, links and ideas/analysis to something other than the goals of investing. Investing is about knowing the odds. You do not want me to mention them because they show you as a flaming idiot. What is it you would rather inguiring minds to know? Some concocted story that lost in court? That the prospects do not matter so long as investors 'believe in' your side?
The basic truth about PRKR are found in the stock price and the odds.. not your story. Stop being a lying falsetard trying to steer people from the facts.
Fact: PRKR is down and the odds are mounted against investing long the stock. Unless you live on Bizarro World where up is down, black is white, red ink is black ink, the odds are the odds.
Sham way to divert attention from the losses long snakeoil salesmen have incurred on those who took their advice. Those advocating PRKR have cost investors money over 90% of the time. If that is the result of 'paid bashers' then those who took that advice, nonetheless for your childish bashing of posts adverse to PRKR, have saved themselves from losses.
Keep it up... "Come on and join us in our misguided effort to pump up a worthless company stock." "Ignore that our advice has lost past investors most of their money... everything is cool now... invest with us and you will surely beat the odds!"
The score still remains: PRKR has about a 1.75% chance of both surviving PTAB IPR review of patent claims and reversal of Judge Dalton's ruling and a retrial 'final win' of the case. PV's stock price has shot up a whopping ten cents... now its down to a gain of 6c following the filing of PV's brief and an Supreme Court ruling some erroneously construed as favorable to the company.
PRKR stock pumpers score looks even worse than PRKR's chances: By the statistics for PRKR, 98% of those who purchased the stock over the past 15 years have lost money. Conversely, those who shorted the stock, unless they did so at under about $1, which is difficult to do since most brokers do not lend stock to short under $5, have made, on average, over a gain of over 90% (gain from the mean average over 10.50).
Pump harder snakeoil salesmen in training. Zip boom bah, tear 'em, tear 'em up harder, harder!!!
PV's Prucnal failed to use the documentation you describe as so complete that "I'm confident I could reproduce Qualcomms chips with these documents alone." to produce a demonstration circuit, simulation or provide measurements that it uses Parkervision's technology. If Q's documentation is so easy to confirm use of PV's patents, why hasn't this multi-million dollar ponzi scheme company ever produced such a circuit or just a simulated circuit? Wouldn't that have helped them to sell the technology to somebody? If it is so easy-peasy to go from design documents to commercial device, why don't you produce some killer circuits to sell into the market? PV has zero sales, zeropaid licenses, zero proof their 'easier, cheaper, simpler/fewer circuits' technology works or is used by anybody.
You keep putting your foot in your mouth: Yea sure, Qualcomm produced voluminous documents, measurements and they do exhaustive simulation to prove that it will work under the crossfire of internal reviews. They do that and they produce test articles to check out how the circuits work in actual silicon and devices... before they go into full production. PV has not done that. They have not even taken what you describe as being easy to render documents to produce proof that their technology is being used. Instead, Prucnal et al just repeat PV's 'trust us' Fairy Dust hocus-pocus that 'its so easy to see we do not need to take the step to prove it will work... that is so easy its a given'.
OK, I will agree for the sake of argument that Q's documents make it easy for even a web board fellow idiot to build the circuit. Given that Parkervision has not done so leads to a conclusion that either they can't or they refused to do so because it would prove that Qualcomm does NOT use the technology. The only conclusion one can come to is that they decided not to take this easy as sin step because it would show that D2D is not being used.
Not likely. MVNO is not the direction ... integration of services on top of multiple networks/spectrum is the fulcrum point for network operators, integration of OTT services on top of networks and devices is the fulcrum point for ICT service industry players like Google. For this to become a success for Google the operators must help them, and vice versa, create more unified and efficient delivery of services and devices. Carlos Slim is being forced to divulge Mexican network dominance. Even though he has expressed some interest in selling MVNO operations, that would likely be at a premium cost. Softbank is not primarily a network operations company.. it is more a services company and that is the expressed direction Masa Son wants to take Softbank.
SB's near term goals in network ops is to turn Sprint into a self-sustaining enterprise, combine with T-Mobile upon showing the combined entity would be pro-competitive, something the Google deal furthers, and leverage services on top of the platform, something the Google deal also can further. The network is a platform for extending services through packaging of better integrated, easier to use devices, applications, content and services. Acquiring an MVNO would compete with that effort. Maybe Google should acquire Slim's MVNO operations to gain a large entry point.. not Sprint.
Google is not 'entering the N.A. carrier market'.. they are entering as an MVNO which repackages the operator's core network services. Like other MVNO's, they buy access to networks as metered bandwidth connections and sell it to consumers under their own label at a higher price. MVNO's can provide unique marketing and service plans, device mix, and added features. That last item, added features, is what Google may do significantly differently than other MVNO. G has extensive cloud infrastructure services, advertising, ecommerce platform, online payments, and other services to offer with smartphones. Although these are already available as open commodities, they will probably integrate them better. Google has TV and video content that could be expanded and offered as an extended trial or freebie in competition with Amazon, Apple and host of OTT services. G has not fared all that well in each of these emerging areas. However, by packaging them they might gain better traction.. similar strategy to Microsoft.. each application might not be the best but they work together and you get them as a package on a growing platform.
But how can this strategy compete with Verizon, AT&T who control the vast majority of marketshare? Verizon is leading the way for US operators in cloud services, vertical market integration (such as autos). And VZ is preparing to enter TV/Video and multicast/unicast video in a way no other operator looks prepared to compete head to head. To some extent, Google+S+TM are chasing a moving target with a less well developed plan of attack. For this three amigos plan to work out there is much more than lopping together of existing capabilities that will be needed to be wrenched together in a more seamless "Jobsian" style that pleases users more fully than simply offering a lower price for the package.
Switching between Sprint and T-Mobile networks was what I figured as part of it. What could also happen is bonding or channels from both carriers at the same time. For example to provide higher bandwidth for video services. Individual carriers have been migrating to LTE-Advanced networks with multiple-carrier aggregation capabilities and the latest devices using Qualcomm or Mediatek chips can do channel aggregation.
Google would be unique which could certainly be an additional selling point of the service.
The article says they could start offering it by the middle of this year.. earlier than I thought likely. Its possible that this generates more interest in the stock that goes beyond the low early impact on sales and negligible likely impact on earnings. Google may also pay a large enough amount up front to have a positive financial impact, although if so it would need to be accounted for over the quarters of use. As reports of details filter out, this is shaping up positively thus far.
Sprint has needed to have a bigger plan to shoot for.. this deal isn't an overall company direction but its big and different enough to set a new tone for the direction that can shape up. I think it will likely influence the stock to move higher even though its primarily 'just an MVNO deal'.
Invention is a difficult business: inventions in electronics are often pursued with the best of intent to get around problems or take advantage of new factors, such as evolution in the ability to use new methods due to the advances in semiconductors. Present day 3G and 4G communications were not possible ten-15 years ago simply because the signal processing and level of analog and digital integration was not there yet. Over the past five years SoC's have advanced far enough to place multiple radios using multiple RF receivers and signal processing chains on a single chip.
Most developments in the communications field requires gaining of acceptance through standards groups and/or vetting the technology through exposure of technical papers that provide enough details for academicians and people in the industry to dissect it and compare the pros and cons against other approaches. That pursuit of acceptance can open the inventor up to having the ideas understood and used more easily. Of course, that could lead to infringement of patents. However, because of the vetting and clearer public and more prolific NDA disclosure along the way enforcement potential is greatly enhanced. How the technology is implemented is 'out there' and there are usually much clearer points of proof and showing of involvement of the parties. If you look at patent cases you will find several where part of the evidence are correspondence, presentations, etc. in the standards groups or clearing houses such as IEEE and 3GPP. There also is often clear way to prove use/infringement in the circuit or methods used.
People will patent 'fairy dust' - sometimes because they are unaware of prior art in their or nearby fields of endeavour or because they figure out how to get away with a broad rather than a narrowly construed set of claims. Patent filers typically try to get as broad of claims as possible... if they achieve the goal, the claims can prove invalid despite narrow claim validity.
The details are limited but it should be a good deal for all three because it is incremental, is in the direction each needs to move and the 'deal' can develop into something greater than the individual parts and help out other business objectives, such as the TM-S merger prospects. Since Sprint is at a more vulnerable/critical juncture and reportedly Google will buy more from S than TM, I'd have to say its better for Sprint. Softbank also stands to benefit because the Google devices and services might fit in with other SB units. Masa Son has said he wants to expand more into international services and has had talks with eCommerce companies in India, Indonesia and elsewhere.. I think a further collaboration with Google can benefit those business ventures.
I've said that what is lacking is a "Jobsian" approach to device, network, and service integration. Google can help because they have largest marketshare in OTT TV/media, phones and other devices based on Android OS, messaging, email, etc. While no operator has true international reach, Google does. So the tie-in with Google could develop into the 'glue' of integrated device-services that would be difficult for Softbank to develop. Softbank Japan has better device-service integration than, probably, any US operator. However, they cannot simply transfer that to Sprint. This may help them develop the ease of use and universality needed to deliver across geographies.
However, this thinking is still much speculation. Google and cable companies were partnered with Clearwire and nothing came of it. Nothing much might come of this ... however, the timing and makeup of companies/people looks promising.
A study of patent cases over the past thirty odd years shows that they inevitably resolve upon the evidence. The facts/evidence can be disputed, however, 'basic' evidence such as testing, physical product demonstration, or simulation is required.
Before the Parkervision vs Qualcomm lawsuit had been filed, it should have been clear that PV has not had evidence of how their product works. There is not a receiver/transceiver circuit simulation you can buy under NDA. There are no vetted white papers presented to IEEE or other respected group. Upon an analysis of the patents, I thought Parkervision would never produce such evidence. When it began, therefore, PV was destined to put forward a 'storyline' case based on the 'little guy gets cheated' scenario.
A study of patent cases shows that storyline case strategy only works sometimes in DCs, almost never and to much less degree in CAFC or ITC (it can where the large company has shown to be a real asxhole).
This case and PV's future are winding down along the lines expected: no means of proof, not golden ring.
The deal between Google, T-Mobile and Sprint may pave the way for regulatory approval of a merger between TM and S because it centers around development of alternative sources for devices and service. In effect, depending on the details of course, this could present the market with a 'fourth mobile operator' that DOJ and FCC say is needed to provide the public with alternative choices that stimulate innovation and price competition. A problem with that is MVNO's have only achieved a small portion of overall mobile marketshare and do not (yet) play a substantial role in home/SOHO broadband, OTT, mobile payments, banking, and other envisioned services. Google has the potential to change that because they have content and services that are otherwise command respectable marketshare.
DOJ and FCC should be looking beyond the USA to what is happening Internationally: Alibaba, Amazon, eBay, and other eCommerce companies have entered into media, wholesale, banking etc. that transcends international borders. Thus the competition is not just for control of networks and devices but what 'plays' on top of them. Apple owns no networks but is the largest company in the world today. The next might be Alibaba or Google, or, if Masa Son gets his wish, Softbank.
Another area to think about is how this might impact DISH and who it might partner or merge with.
Google and other MVNOs handle their own devices. Those may work through the same supply and after-market chain as the infrastructure operator. Google has working and supply relationships with several device manufacturers and can be expected to source at least some devices through HTC and other suppliers they have worked with in the past. Since there tends to be high turnover of MVNO devices, the aftermarket refurbishment and resale channel is important.. so Google might well work with Softbank's BrightStar similar to Sprint.
The customer would have a direct relationship with Google, not Sprint or T-Mobile. I expect most of the sales would be through online and retail chains - not for Google to establish its own bricks and mortar store chain. Google has been building up mobile and OTT content and services and can be expected to try to leverage lower priced plans and devices with that content and apps. The overall product offering would try to add momentum to their TV/movie/music and services content stores/play in order to better match Apple imo.
Your relationship would be with Google for customer service. T-Mobile and Sprint would be silent partners. Your Google device would work on either network, probably on a 'best connected' basis. So who would be to blame for call and broadband connection problems? Google.
The reason I say the 'perpetual longs' are worse than bashers is because they often do more harm. 'Bashers' tend to keep people out of risky investments with their hard cash. The extremist longs get people to invest, often at the wrong time and for hair brained reasons. Who is worse? If bashers throw a bit of trepidation to longs, they serve a purpose. Hype from longs might lose those unable to form their own reasonable assessment of odds are dipping their hands into the new investor's pockets. Otherwise, why hype? .. obviously to get the price higher.. like a barker at a car auction.
Both longs and shorts are legit aspirations. So long as you have odds figured out, protection set in, and don't turn it into a religion, take whichever side is likely to net a return.
There are the so called "longs" and then there are good to professional traders and investors. Most of the ideas and advocations of the so called longs is just as bad, or, actually much worse, than the supreme idiot 'bashers'. They both do not express the brains it takes to undo their zippers and take a wiz.
The use of capacitors as a storage/holding device to sample signals is not a Parkervision invention. Parkervision could only show that Qualcomm uses capacitors for filtering... because Qualcomm agreed to such. They provided no proof, either in the analysis of Q's circuits or simulation and testing that the capacitors in Q's circuits are used for the unique energy sampling that is alleged to work in commercial wireless chips. Parkervision cannot make that work in their own products, VIA's or anyone else's. The only way to posture the technology is to hire expert witnesses who come up with their own unproven/tested conclusions.
That legal bomboozle has been destined to fail once it got to CAFC. Surprisingly, Judge Dalton was smart enough and wise enough to have caught it before allowing it to slip by his district court on the way to being thrown out on appeal.
The longs are becoming more desperate as time goes on and, thus, more bold in their assertions to try to divert attention from the facts. CAFC will not take the storyline seriously because the facts/proof does not support the fairy dust tale. This is 98.25% certain to result in a resounding defeat for this ponzi scheme of a company.
Sprint has not been 'taking them to the other side' in large enough numbers to counter T-Mobile's momentum or set a new trend towards sustained profits. You made a statement that is not being shown in Sprint's results. Maybe the meek gains in subscribers recently reported will gain momentum in coming quarters... or maybe Sprintsy will fall further behind because a cut in prices without a competitive edge in networks becomes a race to the bottom. If that theory of what is occurring proves out, then the price cutting moves are a sign of desperation rather than proactive competition. Competition in this industry starts with competition to build better networks across the board... not just in lumpy-gravy sweet spots.
That is a load of crapola. Sprint's coverage and bandwidth are a mis-match to market needs.. a fabrication that holds up in the minds of marketing and not in the results that have been piling up for years.
What the network surveys consistently show is that Sprint builds lumpy-gravy networks: networks with peak service levels higher than the market needs demand in sweet spots of coverage, lower than market needs demand in more places than their competitors. When is Sprintsy wintsy going to stop lying about their networks and face reality?
There you go again.. confusing the FUD factor with facts... OB, Tampa et al brought up yet another fud factor and you dare to point out the fallacy of the attempt to steer away from basic proofs of infringement.. some on, what fun is that?
"All ParkerVision was able to offer by way of evidence of infringement were the opinions and theories of operation of people paid by ParkerVision." PV's recent brief had to acknowledge that they failed to provide proof through simulation or testing and expect that CAFC will allow the jury to believe in Parker's unsubstantiated fairy dust theories just as investors always have. And if you push hard enough the arguments cascade to a fallback position that there is a conspiracy that prevents the proof to be assembled... despite over 15 years to have done so. The proof of PV's theories has never been provided afer all these years.. not just in the time constrained venue of a jury trial but in the protracted and costly development of products, sales efforts... no proof is the modus operandi of charlatans that do not want to expose the 'secret sauce' because it simply has never worked to anyone's satisfaction. VIA doesn't use it... another lame excuse explains that... a conspiracy of a large company against a small one that prevents the small competitor from using a technology to gain a market advantage. It does not matter what you throw at Parkervision to dislodge the reluctant proof from their feverish minds.. there is no proof. When the technology is tested or attempted to be built it falls apart. All the glorious early expectations that bamboozled Q's engineers fails to hold water when fully vetted. On closer examination of prior art, the methods were tried and abandoned or used in specific applications. In any case, the energy transfer method of signal acquisition does not work.