Fri, Dec 19, 2014, 4:27 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 26096 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 minutes ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    An Appeal cannot rectify the lack of evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 4:19 AM
    teamrep teamrep 22 minutes ago Flag

    RF circuits work in a 'chain' or process, if any single step is changed, the process is changed. This applies to many areas of communications technologies because of the laws and methods of signaling. Patents cannot be valid if they only define partial steps to some interpreted result.

    It is irksome to try to explain this over the past ~15 years. You guys are absurd in thinking you understood what you have been gushing out of your #$%$ cracks all these years.

  • teamrep teamrep 47 minutes ago Flag

    You idiots. If the patents are declared invalid, any independent claim, and the court case is voided, caput, no-redraft, no-punt, no overtime, finis ulmitmus contradictus.

  • Reply to

    On simulations and Testing

    by overbrook10 6 hours ago
    teamrep teamrep 2 hours 44 minutes ago Flag

    You are making yourself into a clown. Your arguments are like PV's - the patents apply to everything regardless of the facts. No evidence is needed... just sprinkle on some Fairy Dust and all circuits that do ZIF or IF infringe.

    PRKR is dead. The PTAB finding is further confirmation, as is any more is needed. Read it and, if you have a working brain in your head, weep.

  • Reply to

    Bye Bye Miss American

    by bjingles 17 hours ago

    What are you talking about? PV's objection of Farmwald and IPX having filed the IPR? That is moot. PTAB is proceeding with the IPR as petitioned. PV has no evidence that, as JP et al have insinuated, Farmwald or IPX are tied to Qualcomm in this matter.

  • The nutty professor of RF and legal matters speaks! LOL!!!

  • Reply to

    Bye Bye Miss American

    by bjingles 17 hours ago

    The preliminary finding comes as was expected. Now there is a"reasonable likelihood" the case will be rendered moot by PTAB IPR and Parkervision will be left with substantially all of its claims with which to pursue further litigation gutted.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, an Appeal Court can't accept new evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 11:26 PM

    You are blatantly and forever wrong: "1) befor and after just can't happen in reality, and (2) the same baseband appears simultaneously at both the switch and capacitor due to their interaction," QC asserts the TX filter is tuned to the carrier wave signal which does not appear at the output of the mixer. Its function is to prevent the transmitted signal from cross-coupling to the nearby receiver, ie. filter out the orders of magnitude higher TX signal. The BB signal output from the mixer does not enter/interact with the TX capacitor. In any case, Parker has not proven their theory that it does.

    PV's argument is the one that must be proven to show infringement. It does not even approach 'sounding damaging'. And 'in reality' the baseband signal does fly by the filter that is tuned to the TX signal rather than the baseband signal.

    Your insistence on this same argument heard over and over again will never make sense.

  • Reply to

    On simulations and Testing

    by overbrook10 6 hours ago

    Prucnal didn't simulate Qualcomm's circuit.. it was not an accurate representation.

    "He forgot to note that in his testimony, Dr. Prucnal testified that they actually operate at less than 50% in real life conditions" 50% duty cycle is the intent, RF circuits often do not achieve theoretical values due to shifts in timing/phase and imperfection in the circuit timing. PV's assertion is that something other than a nominal 50% duty cycle circuit is being used. Instead, Qualcomm is alleged to use energy sampling instead of a continuous or, given the typical imperfections, effectively continuous signal.

    The fault with Prucnal's testimony is he did not show this in the simulation or other evidence. It was not backed up with measurements or other supporting evidence that would show it to be anything other than conjecture. On the other hand, there is ample literature and patents that explain operation of 50% duty cycle (as well as 25% D.C.) mixers that discuss the issue of LO accuracy/timing.

    Multiple patents and papers show mixers that use less than the full 50% duty cycle in order to reduce impacts of harmonic distortion. For example, this:
    "From the analysis above, we conclude that a duty-cycle equal to 43.65%, very close to 7/16 is the sweet spot to reject both the 7th and 9th harmonic, whereas a reproducibility better than 0.1% is needed to keep the 7th harmonic suppression within 1dB of its target value." from tile...Mixer Duty-Cycle Control achieving

  • Reply to

    hoping to make a quick buck

    by b0n312 Dec 16, 2014 4:50 PM

    Despite the belated downgrade and lack of significant positive news, tax loss selling, window dressing selling, Sprint (S) chart and technical indicators remain bullish. A retest of lows is possible but probably temporary. Likely move toward 4.5ish level.

  • What has worked, making up valuations for a stock, announcing it on web boards as 'WXYZ' stock is worth what I say it is, or a value determined by the market's interpretation of value and direction? The market is always right because that is where you buy or sell stocks. Unless Yahoo! creates its own stock exchange, call it the SEFDI, Stock Exchange for Dweeb Investors, the NASDAQ is what determines the 'value' for Sprint (S).

    Making stuff up does not work.

    Craig Moffett and other analysts have come to realize that Sprint is building a more expensive and limited network that makes it difficult to achieve parity with competitors. To move up, Sprint, or any operator, has to deliver services that are either better or have a lower cost. When the financial analysts look at Sprint's spectrum position, networks, build plans, marketing and sales, relationship with Softbank including BrightStar, they do not see anything that changes the ranking of competition. In fact, they have a difficult time seeing Sprint holding its net position. S is forced to offer lower pricing to make up for deficient networks. That probably can keep subs from an exodus to competitors and may result in net gains. The cost, however, is lower margins, lower top line. Treading water is the best, most likely outcome for the foreseeable future.

    Same as it ever was... same as it ever was... same as it ever was ...

  • Reply to

    The COOPERMAN Question

    by greekmonster101 20 hours ago


    That is not what is taking place at Sprint.. you are delusional.

  • teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 11:07 AM Flag

    Most people do lose money buying call or put options because the majority of the time they expire worthless or are exited at a loss. There is a fair possibility that enough will improve within Sprint and the environment to cause the stock to reach a higher level between now than JAN 2017. The stock will have to go up a buck or two for those far out of the money options are impacted by much... that far out in time and strike usually means they hold pretty steady until the price gets closer. Not a bad bet considering its buying calls.

    The other way is to buy stocks when you think they are overly beaten down and sell calls when the stock reaches a fever level. Like selling lotto tickets when the jackpot has risen... the odds actually get lousier you can win but the higher price (jackpot) boils investor's blood.

  • Reply to

    shorts one word for you..

    by oldmaneddie81 Dec 18, 2014 9:11 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 10:33 AM Flag

    The trouble with people who define themselves as a long or a short is they have an artificially narrowed view of investing that can lead to losses. "Longs" as a group have lost money on Sprint over the past several years... the stock is down, although shy of all time lows, its down over 62% for the year. This is not an Alice in Wonderland story told to help kids feel good so they can sleep warm and cozy.Its the brutal business of investing.

    Long, short labeling is childish. Pick whatever side looks likely to prevail at each point in time and go with it. If this stock board actually mattered, there might be a point in chiding short sellers (or longs). But most shares in float are held or shorted by funds, hedge funds, insiders and not dweeb retail investors who frequent these boards.

    What is worst about lame posts about 'we are gonna' get shorty' is that they fail to take advantage of when the short side is the side to be on... or taking profits and setting in stop-loss orders.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 10:11 AM Flag

    The mapping of claims was a circus side show. QC saw no need to prove what was unproven... that was explained months ago when the issue of 'infringement expert' was brought up. QC saw the rudimentary mapping of claims which failed to provide proof, despite the tabloid demonstrated mapping that so wowed the jury, on the key points on the energy transfer method. Qualcomm knew they were not using D2D and thus pursued proving it was not being used rather than try to contest Prucnal false picture board mapping of claims to their circuit.

    "We see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" You will never admit that proving something wrong that had never had proof to begin with was not needed.

  • Reply to

    Where Are the Lawyers on this Board?

    by overbrook10 Dec 15, 2014 2:59 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 9:36 AM Flag

    Its in QC's appeal filing. It does not matter that much because its likely to become a mute point... PV lost, does not have proof, no matter how much that hurts your pocketbook and longs won't admit it. This banter could go on forever except that PRKR will lose on appeal and likely have patent claims invalidated by PTAB IPR, Inter Partes Review, which may intervene to derail the lawsuit..

  • Reply to

    An Appeal cannot rectify the lack of evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 4:19 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 9:21 AM Flag

    Parkervision's case and their patents are so much gibberish. Starting with the patents: they use terms in a confusing way than fail to clearly define the invention so that someone versed in the art could use them to build the alleged technology. The description of the technology is vague, using terms such 'non-negligible' amounts of energy and ill-defined explanation for aperture but then failing to set limits on what is or is not included under the umbrella definitions.Partly because of that, the patents are invalid imo. Besides the patents have been contrived in the manner of the late 90's to early 2000 era USPTO law firm contrived patent trolling, the references and citations being packed with sometimes irrelevant prior art while ignoring prior technology that would reduce or invalidate claims. PV's patents also fail to come up to par for technically concise description of the technology. There is only rudimentary use of equations to explain how the technology works. That is likely because PV bases their tech on vague concepts to begin with. Or it could be left ill explained through mathematics/calculus on purpose - to avoid being pinned down in a way that can be directly challenged in peer review or evaluated for potential use and then found lacking.

    The lawsuit was, of course, based on the patents. McKool had not choice but to offer Parker's LSD mind-distorting punch bowl. The case was built on evidence of past negotiations prior to Qualcomm coming to the similar conclusions that the technology does not teach a useful new/unique method and, as constructed by Parkervision, cannot be made to work in their applications. And they found prior art that teaches what is covered by the overly broad interpretation of claims, thus ruling PV out even if they were to have used it.

    McKool built the case on out-of-context emails and innuendo to inappropriately sway the jury. PV does not have proof in or out of the courtroom.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 8:56 AM Flag

    You will find out why when Judge Dalton's ruling is upheld by CAFC. You would not listen to the truth if it were spelled out in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... little steps.

  • Reply to

    Can Sprint Fly ?.

    by easymoney216 Dec 18, 2014 1:13 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 18, 2014 8:26 AM Flag

    You are not adding anything to the board... sounding like a broken record. Inform or post nothing.. or iggy.

  • teamrep teamrep Dec 17, 2014 11:31 PM Flag

    Most Americans and most Cuban-Americans now want it. It will be nice.. I've never visited but have visited other islands and Cuba is said to be a gem.

  • Even if Sprint were to get 100% contract from Cuban government to be the new mobile operator.. it would not be an overall benefit. Cuba is poor and Sprint has no spectrum or business there to parlay. Even if given spectrum, it would be small potatoes.

    On the other hand, I think its good to see liberalization of trade.. its best for Cuba and the US.. even most Cubans in the US/Florida now want more open relations. Its the best way to cause Cuba to change and it adds a small bit of growth to the US economy.

72.61+0.220(+0.30%)4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.