Ask yourself "why do courts grant trade injunctions?"
Your answer should be something like: "Because the party (PV) would be harmed if trade were to continue" Injunctions are ruled in cases where the two or more parties engage in trade in the same markets and where monetary awards does not otherwise compensate them.
Apple, for example, claims 'irreparable harm' due to Samsung's sale of products ruled to infringe. Apple and Samsung sell mobile phones and pads into the same market, spending up to billions of dollars to market them and build brand loyalty. Apple can contend that an injunction is the only remedy because the brand loyalty and sustained marketshare momentum can be damaged irreparably... that is, money awarded by the court in their court victory cannot compensate fully for the market damage.
Parkervision has no damages that cannot be remedied by monetary settlements. JP and Mr. Fairey Dust Sorrells can claim they cannot sell their whatchamacallit stuff but that is childish BS.
When Sprint was acquired by Softbank several questions remained unanswered: How long would subscriber losses continue? When would the bottom be reached on revenues and losses? How much improvement in service to customers would result from the increased build and harmonization of S's networks?
More than 2/3 of the time stocks do no better than move down or go flat following such major acquisitions and restructuring. Sprint has managed, thus far, to buck this trend despite the fact it has faced headwinds from having followed competitors into LTE 4G networks. The stock has moved up above the prior trading range between 6 and 7 with the 7 range setting the new support level.
A few analysts have recently lowered their ratings, primarily based on perceived high valuation as prior price targets were met or exceeded. Are they right or will the market look past expected continued sluggish performance in sub numbers and revenue towards the completion of the initial stage of Network Vision tri-band LTE network and device proliferation that should lead to net gains in financial performance?
All the telecom stocks are participating in the tech rise... raising questions of whether this is another bubble or a precursor of a broader improvement in the economy.
Questions, questions, questions. The fate of S hinges on performance and expectations. Expectations going into mid 2014 look good... whether that translates to solid numbers likely will determine if a sustained move higher or sideways above 7 is in the offing over the next few months imo.
What has happened thus far is that Parkervision won a jury verdict based on 'picture painting' of a small company having developed technology that was presented to Qualcomm who 'stole it'. The picture was painted using ten+ year old emails and opinions that looked very bad for the defendant. However, that took the jury's focus off of what was supposed to be the primary issue in the case, the whether Qualcomm actually used PV's patents based on the details of the circuit design and claims.
There remains a major disconnect between the minds of 'longs' and the actual issues: the ruling of the district court is only one step in the overall legal process. You assert that the jury has ruled, Qualcomm has been found to be infringing Parker's patents according to the claims construction, and, therefore, Qualcomm is guilty and must pay. However, our legal system sets rules for evidence and procedures that must be adhered to in order to avoid grounds for appeals. The fact is that sharezombies have stressed emails, 10+ year old statements and avoided discussions about evidence showing Qualcomm does not infringe and the overriding case was allowed to become inappropriately, per Judge Dalton's pre-trial statements and rulings, prejudiced by the 'story painting'. The jury made a decision that was based on that emotionally charged storyline rather than make use of what was supposed to have been minor influence on proceedings decided on technical rather than emotional merits.
Several issues are now in front of Judge Dalton that vary between assessing of ongoing royalties for which Qualcomm would be deemed liable under the current ruling to vacating the jury verdict and going to a retrial. Qualcomm has rights to appeal the case as put forth in motions to the current court or determined by the pending rulings.
Bottom line is that calling Farmwald out as having been wrong in these earlier statements is premature as the current ruling may not stand.
The underlying assertion is that Qualcomm's actions, such as communications between their CEWO and VIA's CEO stepped over the lines .. the emails inferred that this communications was aimed at getting VIA to testify unfavorably about their relationship with PRKR. However, there was no evidence that any subsequent action was taken. In fact, VIA indicated that they were being paid by PV and would not testify against those interests.
Your post implied that this case was significant to the Chinese government regulators. It hardly is. In the first place, there has been no finding by any court in this matter. Furthermore, what Q was trying to get VIA to testify about was a) the low license term rates PV has agreed to license their technology, and b) that PV was paying VIA to co-develop chipsets. VIA competes with Qualcomm, mostly at the low end of the market. The CEO's email looks more to convey independence of the competitor than being under the thumb of Qualcomm as a monopolist - the CEO declined his cooperation.
LOL! The gaul of PRKR pumpers. Yea, the world of communications spins around PV... Chinese government is reading this web board for hints on the direction it should take... and seeks the wisdom of Jeffrey Parker, the guy who has been perpetually wrong about the use of vaporware technology.
No nimbie: China had made the converged communications, ICT, sector among its top goals for national development and independence over ten years ago. It was and remains a 5 and 10 year goal for national investment. Among the segments China is investing and providing favorable tax and other incentives is the telecom semiconductor and device segments of ICT. Despite the government stimulus and huge private investment by Huawei/HiSilicon, and many other companies and startups, China has continued to rely on communications, networking and computing chips from the US, EU, Taiwan, and South Korea. Over the past few years some western chip suppliers have faltered while Taiwanese based MediaTek and additional US companies, including Broadcom have gained ground. In fact, Qualcomm can now point to the growth of MediaTek in particular as evidence that they do not hold monopoly power in China. MTK chips are used in almost as many Chinese manufactured phones than Qualcomm.. however, at lower prices.
Among the top 5 operators, Sprint stands to benefit the most from participation in the upcoming FCC incentive auction of 600-700MHz spectrum. Sprint is putting together the tri-band LTE multi-carrier band network using leading edge network and device technologies. However, relative to the two dominant market players, Verizon and AT&T, Sprint lacks similar depth of sub 1GHz spectrum that can provide wide area coverage and building penetration at lower cost of deployment.
The new FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, had been speculated to become an even handed leader of the communications regulator. However, he had been the CEO of CTIA the communications industry group which led to speculation he might sway toward 'business as usual' and go along with pressures by the largest operators to allow them to gain marketshare and dominance of business. Thus this and other early indications of where Wheeler will steer the FCC are important to Sprint and T-Mobile's future.
"The nation's top telecommunications regulator on Monday gave his strongest indication to date that he might support limiting big carriers like AT&T Inc. T -1.16% and Verizon Wireless from amassing huge amounts of high-quality airwaves at a coming spectrum auction.
The statement by the Federal Communications Commission's new chairman, Tom Wheeler, was welcomed by T-Mobile US Inc. TMUS +1.85% and Sprint Corp. S -2.26% , both of which are hoping to use the auction to beef up their networks.
"Spectrum is finite, and the FCC is charged with managing the airwaves that are used for commercial purposes," Mr. Wheeler said Monday in a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "A key goal of our spectrum-allocation efforts is ensuring that multiple carriers have access to airwaves needed to operate their networks."
Mr. Wheeler specifically mentioned an April filing by the Department of Justice urging the FCC to craft auction rules that ensure AT&T and Verizon Wireless aren't able to gobble up all the spectrum below 1 gigahertz.
Low-band spectrum can cover greater distances, and is better suited to providing wireless coverage in rural areas. The Justice Department argued T-Mobile and Sprint need low-band spectrum in order to compete with AT&T and Verizon. It said rules favoring the smaller companies "could improve the competitive dynamic among nationwide carriers and benefit consumers.""
Wellington is known as among the most secretive of investment services firms catering to a wide audience of clients. Their objective is to make money and they incentivise managers to take risks, including going up to and beyond the edge of legality. The firm has been cited for various offenses including insider trading and questionable hedge fund activity. Public statements of position are rare and have been known to have been offset by hedge fund activity taking an opposite position, notably on the short side, while keeping that side of the action a total secret until SEC or court disclosure reveals the activity.
How is 'smart money' determined? By their success tract record. Short sellers have 'won' most of the time as shown by simple first grade arithmetic: PRKR has gone down over the past ten plus years and the recent rise to this level appears as a relatively small ripple on the long downward slope. Moreover, the financial structure of the company has changed including dilution of shares and exhaustion of alternative paths of business development, leaving Parker's heretofore stumbling vision narrowed to securing revenues of over $150 million per year just to satisfy startup level expectations for use of capital. Since PV has fought it out with the only company that had shown much early interest which is also the largest company and the only target for email extrapolation picture painting blackmail, they have no other fat plums to pick with similar trial antic exploitation likely.
Who is "smart money"? Certainly not long term longs. Short sellers have historically been right, no one can deny that and not be seen as a feeble nimbie or nut case.
Smart money is money that does the methodical work to figure out the likely odds. Its determined only in retrospect so the current 'Smart Money' bets are yet to be determined. However, if history is a guide, then the odds on favorite are the shorts/hedge funds experts.
"After months of speculation, China Mobile will finally be the first carrier to offer 4G LTE in China on Dec. 18, followed by China Unicom and China Telecom, the country's other two major carriers. The news was confirmed by Xinhua, the Chinese government's official mouthpiece.
The launch of 4G in China is a potential boon for Apple, because this means the company can start offering versions of the two latest iPhone models compatible with TD-LTE, the 4G standard used by China Mobile. After years of negotiations, Apple secured the final government license needed to run the iPhone on China Mobile's proprietary wireless network in September. China Mobile is the world's largest mobile carrier with 760 million subscribers, which means that once it starts selling iPhones, Apple may enjoy a significant boost in sales and regain some of the market share it has lost to Android. From China Mobile's perspective, offering iPhones (and other handsets) that support TD-LTE is a valuable tool to convince users to spend more time on its networks."
See Dailywireless article "Apple TD-LTE Phones to China Mobile":
"Apple and China Mobile will likely launch their TD-LTE phone on December 18 and may enjoy a significant boost in sales by offering iPhones that support TD-LTE. But low cost of 4G phones, according to Li Yue, China Mobile’s president, are expected to be priced below 1,000 yuan (US$162) and will appear in the second half of next year...
China has started an anti-monopoly probe against Qualcomm, according to the company. Analysts say the investigation could be an attempt to slow Qualcomm’s business in the world’s largest smartphone market. Neither Motorola’s Moto G nor Moto X are sold in China, a result of the Chinese government’s ban on Google services, which flow into its phones.
Broadcom, Marvell and Intel all claim that they’re well positioned to be the No. 2 player in LTE modems. Intel claims that its XMM 7260 modem will handle TDD-LTE and FDD-LTE, as well as TD-SCDMA"
Sprint (mobile operators) have "many working parts". One part is to build the foundational wireless networks and the NMS, EMS, and various service and support software and refinements in the network that enables good coverage and reliable connectivity to the user. If you don't get that piece working, devices and services that run on top are not going to be competitive. Simultaneously, Sprint-SB and their partners must work on developing versions of the devices and new services and marketing and get these into the retail and other channel pipelines.
Sprint is now at the stage where they have significant coverage of the three LTE networks in place and planned for service in the 1st half of next year that they need to start pushing the devices that can work across all of them into the market. Some users might buy the new LG G2, for example, and still not be within the coverage area of the high capacity TD-LTE network and the other networks may further benefit from performance tweaks or increased coverage. That is part of the birthing pains of building and converting to new networks and devices... Verizon went through it when they brouhgt up their 70MHz LTE network. Sprint is going through it now and into next year...
So, stop complaining.. "Pardon our dust.. improve we must"
What good is a comparison of cap valuations or other 'bottom line' numbers if you are not also comparing how they got there?.. ie. the revenues, gross and net margins, marketshare, stage of development and investment in networks (to determine relative stage of capital leverage), subscriber numbers including recent trends in gains vs. losses, cost of capital/financial leverage and ratios, cost of sales, etc. etc.
No whackamole: IPR/Patent cases are complex and often extended undertakings that are not 'final' until 1) the Judge's ruling is made (which looks likely to take 3-4 months per the current schedule). 2) Appeals, as indicated will be pursued by Qualcomm, usually takes 8-12 months to be heard and 1-3 years further before appeals by either side are exhausted. Other factors can either expand the range of infringement awards or exhaust them: Qualcomm might design new RF that are different and thus either do not infringe or require new trial hearings or court determination on infringement.
Jim Cramer makes $3-$4 million per year in his investment media show and online space. A couple of studies were done that tracked performance of his stock pick recommendations: They show Cramer's picks followed the news rather than reported the early movers... buy picks had moved while bearish picks had moved down prior to his selection, and, importantly, flat to down following his recommendation. If history proves out, then congrats for having been selected.. however, odds are this signals the end rather than beginning of the near term move. Its all circumstantial and a minor factor for stocks... most of the impact of Cramer's picking a stock were shown to last for 3-5 days and then wash out as real news and market action regained prominance
Factual issues/evidence is mentioned in various documents and trial transcripts. If you had a fair intellect you would know them by now and not be asking such stupid questions. Here is a partial list:
From PV website and listed court access records you and other long sharezombies should have read and acknowledged after all these assertions out of thin air:
Doc 423 (cross of Prucnal)
"ParkerVision agreed that the claims require generating the baseband from
energy transferred from the carrier signal into the storage device. (Oct. 10 Tr. at 84:23-85:10 (“Q. And in order to have energy transfer as defined in every one of the claims at issue in this case, you need to have current from the carrier signal flow into the storage device, correct? A. Correct. Q. And then the energy -- then the current from the carrier signal, which is flowed into the storage device, is then used to generate the baseband, correct? A. Correct.”). heart of the claimed invention – how it accomplishes down conversion. Yet, the undisputed evidence of the operation of Qualcomm chips shows that the baseband signal is generated by the mixer itself, before any energy can reach the capacitors in the Tx filter: “The mixer downconverts the RF signal to baseband signal.” (DX 605 at 9.) This fact was confirmed by Dr. Prucnal, ParkerVision’s own expert, who testified that the baseband is created “before the current has reached the capacitor that we’re talking about” and confirmed by the schematics: (See doc)... “Q. So at least in Qualcomm’s architecture, the double balanced mixture not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you’re talking about now, correct? A. Yes.”
Many more citations are in evidence if you retardedly biased basso bothered to read them
Rounderbraindead: You stray from any issue into personal attacks and do not go to the referenced documents to support your dung slinging. Attacking posters has become the baseline of defence for longs.
I don't "refuse" to answer questions where the facts do not matter and can be looked up if the line of inquiry where objectively unbiased.
FYI: Yes my posts at times come across as being snide remarks and inflammatory.. I tend to get that way when the 'other side' gets out of whack with biased views that overlook the basic methodology typical of a study to understand a subject.
Another thing: Do not 'trust' anybody. Investing in stocks is the way mankind has found to make it extremely easy for we common idiots to part with our money in exchange for a symbol representing something that represents a derivative value of the underlying thing called a company that is a derivative legal person that is also made up to represent value that will be produced in the future, if not already, That is a heck of a lot of hands-off abstraction that is open to abuse... but we are taught to think of it as 'an investment in our future'.
When someone owns something they tend to be biased... likewise if they bory to sell it first hoping to buy it back when it is proven it does not work (or as well as thought). The est way to go at this Barnum Bailey Circus called the stock market is to think 'everyone wants to stick their hands in my pocket... best to stay out of risky investments until there is repeated proof.'
Start-up tech stocks, whether they take six months or sixteen years to prove their worth, are highly speculative. The 'Big Lie' about the NASDAQ and other indexes is that they are a value of the whole market. The truth is clear and simple: NASDAQ is an index of those companies that survive... 'losers' are acquired for cents on the dollar or go out at zero/bankrupt or the few tenths of percent recovered in wrap-up shareholder lawsuits.
The credo of the stock hyper: when you cannot refute basic issues, attack the poster with personal assaults. This shows a low level of regard to fairness and lack of willingness to confront issues squarely.
As a matter of record, I have no problem with your pointing out my name because I stand behind my statements.. why aren't you being as straightforward?
Prucnal can hold whatever opinions he wishes... that does not make his statements justified or right. Your post skirts the basic issue: PV has strongly asserted that determining whether there has been infringement requires full understanding of the details of the circuit and also its operation. In fact, both Prucnal and Mr. Fairy Dust Sorrels himself testified that what may look like a conventional RF receiver, such as a quad balanced RF mixer or Qualcomm's specific Magellan RF that was the subject of the trial, would require detailed knowledge of how the circuit operated. This understanding includes measurements of voltage and current levels, (usually determined through circuit analysis using voltage and resistor values and other factors ie. circuit drops). PV's experts and witnesses testified that they did not have this knowledge yet perverted their own testimony by stating that the circuit in evidence, Magellan, infringed. Then they extended the infringement to other devices that were not tested based on basic circuit diagrams, which if similar to Magellan, Sorrells and Prucnal testified had the appearance of a conventional RF quad mixer.
I don't know what hte legal term for extending a false accusation to other instances and then claiming that the subsequent instances are valid may be, but in simple terms its a crock of shisa.. does not hold water, is more JP & company lying out of their #$%$.
I keep thinking, "The Honerable Judge Dalton is not so dense he cannot see through this".. but I've been wrong before.
a backhaul and macro-mini cell network will be required to feed the larger number of local small cells. This problem confronts all operators, however, the incumbents have already spent billions of dollars and years deploying backhaul grids using fiber optic, microwave, and, in some cases cable, DSL, and popular Wi-Fi. DISH will somehow need to duplicate or partner to gain access to similar broadband connectivity.. or the home rooftop network deployment advantage disappears.
FreedomPop provides few insights into DISH's rollout of networks, subscriber gain possibilities or the overall business model because these companies are world's apart in almost every aspect of their business. The degree and way they capitalize their business is almost entirely different. The degree of upfront investment DISH needs to establish metro to nationwide networks compared to using Sprint or any other operators networks as a wholesale, pay-for-use incremental cash-flow model is the difference between night and day.
FreedomPop has, as far as I know, not disclosed the number of subscribers or revenue. MVNO's as a group make up a relatively small part of the overall market... 12%-14%. And that includes all the well known MVNO's including those held captive by Sprint and other operators. Its thought that FP has 1-200,000 subs... almost irrelevant if not for the unusually and potentially disruptive long-term business model. Because the major operators are in control of spectrum and networks, if this or other entrants rise up to threaten their core business, they can copy them at their own gain or otherwise compete in low cost, foot-in-the-door service plans... much as Sprint announced last week with a free/limited plan for students.
DISH can build a network based on the growing capabilities of LTE-Advanced including SONs, self-organized networks, and multiple-channel aggregation. A new generation of chips announced by Qualcomm allows building of true 'World Phone" devices that can be designed and built to operate across 40 bands of spectrum using the same chipsets and board-level designs with needed antenna and RF support built in.
What this capability results in is that D can use their installation crews and mode of customer installation to build a network at lower cost than conventional macrocell or HetNet networks. However, pieces of the network puzzle must be solved: while subscriber rooftops can serve as smallcell sites at much lower cost, cont...