Recent

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

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 1190 posts  |  Last Activity: 7 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    What we were told vs what Prucnal actually said

    by fud.fighter2 May 24, 2015 10:41 PM

    Words have meaning: What words mean to you, Parkervision, various lawyers .. the importance of words depends on the context. In the context of this web board, FUD has marshaled logical, evidence supported posts that have proven to be true from the context of court decisions. FrankenTampa has put forward many posts about imaginary theories. If the courts, the only arbitrators of 'truth'/legal issues that matter, had bought into FrankenTampa's theories of current-on-the-brain imaginary circuit operation, then his derogatory statements about FUD, MF, Qualcomm, myself or other statements might mean something. It should be obvious to a person of adolescent intelligence that FrankenTampa has swung and struck out repeatedly. Has he or PRKR ever scored a hit. Except for the short lived 'storyline case' smoosing of hte jury, PV and FrankenTampa are total losers.

  • Reply to

    What we were told vs what Prucnal actually said

    by fud.fighter2 May 24, 2015 10:41 PM

    Before PV sued Qualcomm I thought they were most likely to go after small companies. That is what is often done by individual inventors and small companies because a) the cost of litigation is much lower, b) the strategy includes building up a list of licensees who have succumbed to the threat of a lawsuit. That establishes something of a commercial precedent that helps to impress larger firms, judges and juries. It also can build a case for sale of the stock to investors and build up an experienced legal team.

    Other strategies that I have seen work: 1. Offer a limited time low royalty rate. This might end up being what or more than the firm would get after costs of litigation are considered. 2. Offer a 'master license' arrangement for each field of application. I used this myself in patent license agreements. This offers the master licensor the right subject to first action, to license the patents and negotiate support from the inventor for a 50:50 (or other) share of the revenues on an ongoing basis. The better the technology or more intimidating it can be posited, the better this can work. For instance, that may have had Qualcomm taking a master license and then sub-licensing to Samsung, Mediatek, etc. However, since Q holds a large share of the business and would have found PV's tech worthless, the deal might have been engaged due to 'storyline factor' and then gone on to net little to no revenue... in other words, the same outcome.

  • Reply to

    Beware of pumpers exploiting lazy investors

    by fud.fighter2 May 15, 2015 1:48 PM

    Yea, hopefully for those who sell bogus tech stocks.

    The results are what matter to investors.. not stock board posts. Your advocacy of Parkerscamavision has shown results: anyone who bought the stock lost money.

  • teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 8:11 PM Flag

    If Sprintsuperhyper, keeps posting at this rate, S will be at 3 by summer! ; ^) ... every 100 posts between super and mr whigglee is delivering results of.. what a second, its not impacting the stock... maybe real investors don't read this board for old news and hard cast opinions.

    "65% yr over yr growth.. golly, I can see that in the numbers... sales shooting up and S is profitable. When I read the financial statements here on Bizarro World, Sprint stock looks great... up, up , up. On your planet, Earth is it? S looks the same but its upside down."

  • Reply to

    Huawei, Qualcomm claim speeds of 600 Mbps.

    by mr_whigglee May 25, 2015 4:13 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 4:39 PM Flag

    That is almost meaningless: Peak speeds of 1.2Gbps are expected using LTE-Advanced in aggregated multiple-carrier networks. So what? Raw technology has never been Sprint's problem. Or, put another way, "How is Sprint going to deploy a network that achieves the demonstrated higher performance?"

    How does the demonstrated equipment achieve 256 QAM? That is only possible if the network achieves high signal level to the user.. or, more correctly, high SNR, signal to noise ratio. Most people are now familiar with WiFi performance: if you are close to or otherwise have a strong signal between you devices and your WiFi router, the bandwidth is high. With the new 802.11ac devices, it can be up to about 1.2Gbps. However, if your device has 2+ walls and a hundred feet to the router, the bandwidth drops off dramatically and reliability and quality of videos etc. deteriorates. Why is that? BEcause if the signal level is high, the devices shift to a high modulation rate such as 64 QAM or 256 QAM in the latest AC standard... just like the LTE standard. That increases bandwidth exponentially. But what if you can't afford to buy a new .11ac router or a second router to cover the second floor or opposite end of area? You know what happens. The bandwidth at the far reaches sucks. Sprintsy wintsy cannot afford to expand the high peak coverage across the country without some form of new funding.

    "Naw, we own the stock and want suckers to buy it from us at a higher price... so lets label this post as "basher" and keep posting about peak values Ericsson, Nokia, Huawie (who does not supply S), and other stuff."

    Pump, pump, pump, pump that booty, pump that booty

  • Reply to

    Jergee1 - a different perspective might help

    by fud.fighter2 May 25, 2015 3:01 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 4:23 PM Flag

    Sorry for the way I often post... dijointed at times because I start a post, go do something of value, then come back to it to get the darn thing finished.. I don't try to proof read much.. take it or leave it.

  • Reply to

    Jergee1 - a different perspective might help

    by fud.fighter2 May 25, 2015 3:01 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 4:20 PM Flag

    This case is exemplary. It is like a supreme 'case study' used in masters and PhD degree programs that enable exploration of not just the vehicle at hand, Parkervision, but the entire system of laws, technology development, the stock market and how the selling of stocks to the public works for good and for bad, etc. Simpy put, this company interests people beyond the now small amount of money in the stock. For me that is not even the issue: I have never owned or shorted PRKR. However, it has been a marvelous way to understand small tech stocks play out in the market, of interest to me because I am very concerned about how functional the stock market is for companies that have real technology or business innovations... that is the root of how well everything in technology formation works. If the PTO is corruptible, which I long believe it certainly has been, and the stock market is corruptible, which is abundantly clear to anyone with 1/4 of a physical brain, (always has been because it is selling paper future value for cold hard cash).

    What have those of us who have followed PRKR learned? We haven't learned much about technology because Parkervision did not create anything beyond the prior art. There are no advances in products, not even Parkervision's own circuits or former WiFi product have sold more than a token amount. PV has not licensed the technology or sold consulting agreements.. in fact the company has paid for their role in 'partnerships' that resulted in spending (losses) of shareholder's money rather than revenues or profits.

    I have followed patents, standards groups and how companies interact in IPR, Intellectual Property Rights, ie. patent licensing, and a few public companies like PRKR. Each provides different ways to 'peel the onion'.

  • Reply to

    Jergee1 - a different perspective might help

    by fud.fighter2 May 25, 2015 3:01 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 3:55 PM Flag

    Some of use followed the patent landscape and saw what was occurring: both rapid evolution of technologies, or rather, 'systems of technologies', but also that Congress was siphoning away funding of the PTO to the point that patent examiners were woefully overworked. And we saw that PTO had, over many decades, become a mill for patent attorneys: Pass the bar, work for PTO for a few years to 'learn the system' and then go to work as a patent attorney. Nothing is wrong with that except the combination of being underfunded and overworked leads to rapid turnover, depleting PTO of seasoned experts in each segment of technology. And that is a formula for abuse at the hands of the graduates of the system. Along with that, proven methods developed to scam the system: pack patents with an overburden of citations that overwhelms the already overworked examiners. Parkervision's patent applications included press releases without any reasonable connection to the patents... throw it in there.. why not include the kitchen sink... get the examiner back on his heels under the pressure of keeping up with his job of reviewing XX number of patents per month. Then use new terms to describe prior art and leave the mechanisms for carrying out the method of the alleged invention vague. CAFC didn't buy it: they asked how the carrier wave energy transfer method produces the baseband signal... all PV can come up with is fairy dust explanations: combine the (clocking) of LO with carrier in a capacitor and out comes the baseband... and somehow that works with the mixer without decreasing SNR.

    Parkervision goes further in its response to IPR testimony: their esteemed expert has the gall to propose a model that produces extraordinary gains in SNBR over what he says is modeled prior art. Too bad that the model he uses does not show energy accumulation.. is shows a S&H undifferentiated from prior art. His arguments over values is demeaning of the art.

  • teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 3:26 PM Flag

    Hype, hype, hype, hype that booty, hype that booty... "I own the stock (have stock to sell) and so want to talk about past articles rather than the here and now. If you don't agree with my hype, you are a 'basher'... we only want dumb tarts to post and read this board."

    Sprint has held, either directly or through Clearwire, 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum over the past 18 years. The results of having that spectrum show up in sub counts, revenue, profit/losses.. ie. its not something new. Pedestrian magazines like PC Mag get lots of things wrong.. they are pablum for the masses. That information has its place. However, how accurate or timely is it? The tone of the article was that Sprint has value locked up in the spectrum. Someone reading that might have bought Sprint (S) thinking it was bound to go up. Instead, it has gone/stayed down.

    Why bring up all these old articles now? Is that because you don't want to face up to the situation or do not understand how things are likely to unfold or just like talking about the past because it offered hope for the future? Since that article, a) AWS auction took place with ~60Mhz of mid-band 'broadband mobile' spectrum that will be put online over the next ~3 years. The FCC has set rules for 3.5GHz 'innovation band spectrum' : from FCC announcement: "FCC unanimously voted to create the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band. This action will create a 150-megahertz band suitable for wireless broadband, including 100 megahertz previously unavailable for commercial use because it was earmarked for military radars."

    Maybe PC Mag didn't understand the situation was changing. Better that informed investors look beyond such pubs for the masses to figure out what is going to happen or they are going to become victims of the 10% of investors who do understand much more than that and consistently take money from the pockets of the dweeb web boards hackers.

  • teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 2:53 PM Flag

    Rogers is a company that 1) makes a profit. 2) Pays shareholders dividends. 3) Is estimated to continue to make profits. 4) Rogers can borrow more capital for new networks if needed, Sprint is fairly well capped out without unusually generous funding from the parent company (beyond parent-subsidiary business norms) or dilution of shareholders equity or a restructuring under a merger or JV that places a higher than market value on unused spectrum.

  • Reply to

    Beware of pumpers exploiting lazy investors

    by fud.fighter2 May 15, 2015 1:48 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 25, 2015 9:44 AM Flag

    Yes, your post is correct: if PRKR were to beat the odds, win on appeal and on the IPR review the stock will go up. No one will lose more than 100% unless they leveraged through their broker... but the decline in stock price would likely have triggered coverage of the leverage.

    It is unknown what a 'win' would look like: the majority of IPR reviews result in at least some revision in patent claims to reduce scope or strike limitations. And a win in CAFC could be a partial win as well: If PRKR were to 'win', which I do not think is going to happen, CAFC would put the case back to DC to rule on invalidity and on the award.

    In almost any case imaginable by those thinking PRKR has a chance to 'win', the degree of the award will be reduced to a large enough degree that it would put the value of the company in question imo. The prior value of PRKR following bringing the lawsuit against Qualcomm had been based on achieving a large award. A win now, as slight as the odds, would result in a fraction of the prior expectations. Thus it stands to reason the shares would be valued accordingly.

  • teamrep teamrep May 24, 2015 9:02 PM Flag

    Yea, we get it: You bought the stock and held it hoping for a big gain. But what you bought was a fantasy story.. or, just say, the vision that Parkervision led you to believe. Despite the many years of disappointments of having never fulfilled a single promise, you cling to the underlying belief that your decision is valid. That is a religion, not a belief in the merits of an investment. Anyone looking at PRKR from the outside will not invest because the risk/rewards odds are worse than a LOTTO ticket. You and others who have continued to hold the stock have a ticket you hope will hit the lucky number. That is not investing, that is betting based on irrational hope for a miracle. OK, we understand, the ticket you hold is valued at 38c if you can find a hapless buyer. Go for it.

  • mr.whigglee has an obvious slant.. he has said he owns Sprint (S) and has been bullish for at least a couple years. Anyone who gets in his way is labelled a basher and is trashed. Since the guy has the time to outpost anyone who wants to counter his one-sided viewpoint, false posts, innuendos, rehashing of old articles, etc. that is slanted to push S higher using this public board as his personal religious zeit geist.

    Why has whigglee turned negative to me and my posting? Because I have posted about the side of the story that is unfaovrable to his bullish position. That is what investment boards are supposed to be about... finding out what is what by sharing information and opinions. Mr whigglee wants to discredit those who do not subscribe to his position.. a position that if others followed him would be down 25%-50%.

    The guy is a mental midget or a mere lazy investor imo... he bashes those who are not equally as bias.

    Why am I posting about a person on this board? That is not what these boards are supposed to be about but since this guy bashed me, I am returning the favor with what I think is a thoughtful appraisal. If mr whigglee (the name says something?), wants to adopt a clear thinking attitude, then I welcome what he might say. Othewise, the guy is a sidenote in the conversation about what is happening in a very pivotal industry.

  • teamrep teamrep May 24, 2015 5:41 PM Flag

    Oops 35 years.. I wish i was a time traveler aroudn for 305 years! ; ^)

  • teamrep teamrep May 24, 2015 5:39 PM Flag

    Listen puckhead. I am employed far above your pay grade... I have worked for myself for the past 305 years dummy. What I have pursued goes far beyond your infantile paralysis mental capacity. Your arrogannce in pucking up investments is well noted.. you can harrang me to discredit what I post... bring it on.. Go get Masa Son. Sprintsy wintsy gadflies to attack me if you wish... I will crush them one by one.

  • Reply to

    idiots

    by brent5634 May 23, 2015 10:30 AM
    teamrep teamrep May 24, 2015 5:29 PM Flag

    Your statement is nonsense: Investors are not supposed to be betting on long shot odds without any knowledge of wtf they are doing. You may be a complete imbecile who puts money into companies with 20 year histories of losses on the chance they will defeat overwhelming odds in legal battles. But that is not at all what investors are supposed to do.

    Since you want to play long shot bets, here are your odds based solely on the average odds of cases heard on appeal by CAFC:

    17.5% of overturning a District Court verdict. Patent cases on appeal have a lower percentage of being overturned on appeal, however, there are fewer cases and thus there are no compilations of the statistics.. which are less reliable from a statistical analysis perspective. Check with you offline odds maker/bookie and they can educate you about the odds .. what I just said.

    Then there are the odds that are added on top of that which lessen the overall odds: The odds of patent claims being either declared invalid or being reduced in scope and number is over 66%. That might be questioned since the data on IPR reviews is short and limited. However, there is no question whatsoever that at least the majority of IPRs result in reduction of patent claims and scope.

    So, for those of you psychopaths who must bet on longshots that insist it must be done by the seat of the of the pants without understanding, the odds are less than 5% ( I think less than 1.75%) that your longshot will play out. That is better than playing LOTTO, however, since the payoff is incredibly lower, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are a complete idiot.

  • teamrep teamrep May 24, 2015 12:36 PM Flag

    C-RAN is? Its magic.. all investors need to know, apparently.

    What is it and how can it be used to give Sprint a competitive advantage?

    C-RAN is an architectural approach to infrastructure that puts the majority of the base station functions on centrally located servers that are connected by high speed, low latency fiber optic to distributed LTE network nodes. The advantage of that are a) the base stations can be made smaller. However, not that much smaller than smallcells that house the entire base station guts. That is because the bulkiest and higher power consumption is in the RF, Radio Frequency, electronics and antennas. That is more the case where higher gain long range directional or high-order MIMO-beamforming antennas are used. It is the antenna assembly that uses up to eight MIMO elements, that is typically the size reduction limitation. The power reduction limitation is powering the higher-powered, larger number of antennas. The power can be scaled dynamically so that peak power is used relatively rarely in many cases, however, even so, it sets the limit on the package design for heat dissipation. Because of that, C-RAN may reduce the size of a typical base station/node by about 1/3 and reduce the power by 25%-33%. That can still be a substantial site savings. Where more of the savings comes into play is that the RF can last for up to several years without need for upgrades. The centralized base station servers can be upgraded as often as the operator wants... its SDR, software defined radio.

    Softbank has well developed C-RAN tech and operations knowhow.

    However, C-RAN is not very useful in expanding coverage outside of major metro areas where there is plenty of available fiber optic. Deploying any type of smallcell, even WiFi, is expensive when done by operators as part of a managed network or hotspot deployment. The site design, lease, labor costs can be 10X more than the raw equipment cost. That applies to smallcells or C-RAN

  • Reply to

    idiots

    by brent5634 May 23, 2015 10:30 AM
    teamrep teamrep May 23, 2015 9:01 PM Flag

    Your statement makes only a TV conspiracy type amount of sense: Sure there are companies that PRKR has gone after who would love to see the patent Troll go out of business. Why wouldn't they? However, what does that have to do with Parkervisions complete failure of selling anybody the technology or products? What you suggest is childishly insane. Stop with the storyline 'PV cannot sell because the Green Meanies prevent them".. are you 13 years old?

  • Reply to

    idiots

    by brent5634 May 23, 2015 10:30 AM
    teamrep teamrep May 23, 2015 8:30 PM Flag

    No, you got it wrong: it does not matter what you think because you cannot think.. are one lazy bestard not willing to do the work.

  • Reply to

    Capacitor fly-by

    by tampa2013 May 22, 2015 2:31 PM
    teamrep teamrep May 23, 2015 10:02 AM Flag

    One of the CAFC judges, maybe Lee?, asked PV's attorney how energy transfer generates the baseband signal. The answer, or lack of one, showed how slippery this is. PV was asked if the technology boils down to specific values for capacitor, resistor and sampling aperture and PV answered affirmatively. I strongly believe that is not patentable as anticipated by (much) prior art.

    Parkervision claims extraordinary improvements for the technology which they claim is unique, stressing multiple sampling. Besides not thinking the claimed method unique, I think the claims for performance help to put nails in the coffin on invalidity. Extraordinary claims requires PTO to look for extraordinary proof... and scrutinize the opposition to the miraculous more closely imo.

DISH
69.04-0.11(-0.16%)May 26 4:00 PMEDT