There comes a point where confidence in your position either suffices or not. There is nothing likely to dissuade Tampa, Overbrook/Nubuzzman and others short of a decision favorable to Qualcomm, and/or the patents ruled invalid in the IPR. The facts of the case are clear. Its also clear to me that PV's patents are worthless and will be ruled invalid, making the lawsuit almost irrelevant to the final outcome.
The only point of continued argument/parsing of facts with these numbnuts is to prevent them from recruiting new suckers. I think there is little chance of that as most potential investors will figure that out with no need of help from this board. Short sellers may be anxious for this farce to finally come to an end... however, talking the stock down to what they hold to be its logical ending seems unlikely before there is a CAFC or PTAB IPR decision.
The most effective build strategy in order to pay for a multiple carrier network is to start with wideband : 20MHz or greater plus guard bands so that there are 10MHz uplink, 10MHz downlink FDD channels. Then add mid-band as mobile broadband access, and, finally, add high band as the WiFi type range/density broadband overlay band.
That strategy is what competitors Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile have pursued. In the real world it often does not look as cleanly planned as on paper: spectrum has come into mobile use based on what was available rather than methodically engineered/planned. And deployments often must uproot existing users, causing disruption and adding to delays and costs. A major reason for Sprint getting behind competitors is because the company already had low and mid band spectrum in use by network technologies that did not have an upgrade path similar to 3G GSM/CDMA networks and thus had to be 'ripped and replaced'. Why was that? Because there was thinking that highband could be exploited more easily as technology progressed, costs would come down, and usage would explode to make it more affordable. Those factors, while being true is kind have not been true in magnitude. The high degree of reliance on highband spectrum puts the cart before the horse in market development. Therefore, a gap develops between what is a theoretical future usage scenario, that of high density high band preference, and how to pay for it to achieve coverage before that scenario can emerge. The gap filler either had to have been more low band networks filled with paying customers or user-deployed 1st mile segment of the network. All else comes short in theory.. which now has proven to have been validated as highband preference first has failed.
You've read wrong" "Have read that Sprint holds the most low band spectrum, but is deficient on mid to higher band spectrum. " Sprint holds the (only) large block of high-band spectrum now available and has a small amount of 800 MHz low band.
Low band spectrum is considered spectrum that is lower in frequency than 1GHz or 1,000MHz. Some authoritative sources consider under 1.1 or 1.2GHz as part of the low band spectrum. The general criteria for calling it low band is the obvious, it being at a low frequency. Also it is based on how signals propagate: at lower frequencies signals act more like sound waves - they curve around terrain obstacles such as hills and around buildings etc, And signals are reflected and absorbed less by walls and foliage such as trees.For that and other reasons, low-band travel farther and penetrate into buildings better.
High-band spectrum is considered that above about 2.2GHz. Here signals travel more like light - in a straight line and tend to bounce off of and get absorbed by stuff in the path. Things like rain/snow impacts signals more. A clue why is that microwave ovens operate in the 2.4GHz because of resonance with H2O.
Midband is a middle point of characteristics considered optimal for 'broadband wireless'.
It used to be that radios operated in a single frequency band, thus the definitions of what works best is becoming obsoleted by multiple-carrier band network and device operation. The 'perfect' real world band is the most optimal available combination of bands used adaptively: When a user is in remote areas with few others to share the bandwidth, low band spectrum is the most cost effective connection. As density of dwellings/commuters/users increases, then mid band, which has more spectrum available, is more suitable. Then as even greater density and capacity is needed for video and downloads, highband becomes a good choice.
Being nimble in a stock like Sprint or any stock that trades at high volume with similarly large swings is about trading rather than buy and hold. The predominant trend in Sprint (S) for years has been down. However, at any given point in time you might think its going to go up. If you have that figured out so you know you can produce consistent results, that what being and staying nimble is all about. Companies must also operate with a degree of financial success to stay nimble. Analysts have come to see that as an unresolved problem that has come to a head. Its like a long investor having all eggs in a basket (company extended with debt) and going to 25% of portfolio value while insisting buy and hold works. It cannot work in down trending stocks. Trading long only can but in one losing stock is not what a pro trader would do.
For independently minded investors all that matters is making money. If the company is a dog, proven to be less competitive by the fact it has seen a loss of customers, revenue and net losses and its balance sheet looks like something that deserves flushing in the executive washroom, but, nonetheless, you think the stock is going to move up from the current position, that is how you should be inclined to play it. You don't love or hate the company. You don't really care because you know you and your trade do not matter a ratz assolini to anyone but you/you account balance.
"Recall QC's Mixer isn't a standard 50%DC voltage mode mixer. It's a 25%DC current mode mixer. A sampling mixer" The mixer does not sample. The mixer resolves the BB signal. The TX filter does not integrate the RX carrier energy to resolve the BB. TX is the filtering stage before the low frequency BB goes on to the next stage where sampling takes place outside of the circuit exampled in the case and claimed under the patents in suit. You are helplessly confused between generating the baseband and sampling the signal. PV claims a unitary process yet fails to simulate, produce a test circuit or measurements of the actual circuit under test, making the utility of their theory of operation unprovable and invalid as a means of supporting the expert witness and PV's theory of operation. As has been a near 100% certainty, that ends the case as soon as CAFC hands down their verdict. Whether that ends PV2 and PRKR as a public company just yet is all that remains at issue here with any degree of hope for longside investors.
Your circular posting may help build some sentiment to drive the stock from 38c to as high as 50c and then back down and up again, however, it has not and will not revive your lost fortunes in PRKR. The company/stock is headed towards a court and IPR decision that will be the end of both and this board ie. at zero.
"But by then there was already an elephant perched on the Qualcomm side of the scales - Prucnal's testimony ... to such an extent that "accurate voltage reproduction" of a signal is prevented."
You make a key distinction here: The mixer is not sampling the signal. It is being switched by LO to resolve the baseband signal. The low pass filter is there so that a clean BB signal passes to the latter stages of the circuit. The A/D conversion process samples... outside of the scope of the patents, the case and the theory of operation offered by PV. However, the only way PV could attempt to show that their method is used is to assert that sampling is occurring that is constituted by/in the TX capacitor.
For that to be the case, then the circuit values would have to be evidenced to be of appropriate values asserted by PV/Prucnal. The switched sampling aperture would be of a sufficiently long duration to transfer 'non-negligible' amounts of energy but not of such long duration to 'smear' the carrier signal over long enough durations to make resolution of BB impossible/useless. PV did not show a direct simulation because, if they had, it would have been seen that the period of the LO signal at the mixer is not suitable for a sampling aperture. The circuit could not be modeled in software or in an example circuit that would show that. It can't be modeled outside of the above confines of this court case because noise comes into play to render the method inferior to prior art methods.. if at all usable. Furthermore, to tailor the circuit values within a range to make the PV method usable firmly pushes it into the envelop shown to be covered by prior art of mixers. Its a catch-22 PV/McKool/Sterne will never get around. Hiring experts to falsify simulation results won't cut it because the IPR and CAFC panels are not likely to be so easily duped.
Tim Donahue was able to capitalize on a unique situation in which Nextel could seize upon the introduction of among the first digital wireless service platforms, Motorola iDEN prior to the development of international wireless technology standards. Making use of iDEN using consolidated spectrum, Nextel was able to offer Push-to-Talk service as a unique capability.. a longer range, more reliable for of walkie talkie communications that appealed to taxi firms/drivers, real estate, construction, and many other service and government segments in which the ability to quickly be in touch with a dispatcher or office was critical to business or government services. However, iDEN was a proprietary Motorola platform never adopted by 3GPP or IEEE as a mainstream wireless technology. That meant common GSM and latter LTE devices could not access the network, making it destined to become obsolete as those standards become broadband. Nextel was sold to Sprint just prior to 3G. As 3G networks, and importantly, SmartPhones become available, Verizon and AT&T began offering push-to-talk applications running on the standard OS platforms and hardware. Running as an app, the same devices used for web, gaming, text messaging and voice applications could also offer the PtT service. That killed Sprint's future with iDEN. Verizon boasted about how they were stealing customers from the then Sprint-Nextel iDEN network. Subscribers fled by the millions while Sprint clung to the platform for over five years. Can you say lost 'Window of Opportunity'? An axiom of business is 'Eat Your Own or your competitors will' .. either foresee what changes on likely to occur and move ahead of them impacting your current markets or your competitors will steal (eat) them from you. Sprint should have easily foreseen that 3G and then 4G would offer, among other applications, push-to-talk capabilities. This was foreseen by handset and OS (Android, Apple and previous OS suppliers).
Idiot short newbie.
Actually, Sprint's chart has shown a high volatility bounce that short-term/day traders love. This is the type of trading action that is made for program trading that sophisticated retail investors and full-time stock pros use. Average idiots like the majority of us on this board can make use of trading platforms from brokers that have fast trade executions such as Interactive Brokers, NYC, to take advantage of the up and down swings.
In years past I participated in a real-time trading group (by invitation) that traded stock picks and order tips on a private message board and website (for posting charts, lists and CSV files, etc.) Among those who belonged to this group were real pros.. a lot better than I ever was at trading. I could tell because they would post how they selected stocks for trading, starting with computerized screening using algorithmic chart and price movement patterns, and then were analyzed personally. Then they would post many of their trades in near real time... they informed the group of their daily watch list and setting of orders based on, for example, breakout moves in the stock price that would either execute by program trade or manually. So if someone latter reported they got in at XX and out at XX, it would be clear if they had. At that time I was not using program trades which proved a real mistake... I was not good at manual order execution in real time. Timing is everything.. algorithms can do execute in fractions of a second... humans jumping in or out seconds or minutes latter might lose out at least some of the time which can be the difference between capturing moves like today's up and down 5%+ swings in S. Program traders hope to get 'the heart of the move' .. the ~60% of the swings up and down repeatedly. That may look like 'just 3-4%', however, its a statisticians game plan...3% three to five times on a volatile stock with 80% assurance? That can equate to low risk 10%-20% on a day like today.
Yes, of course they would. Do you think it normal that CAFC would render a verdict on appeal of a JMOL without looking at it fully?
Put this nonsensical conjecture of yours into a different perspective: If CAFC were considering how PV1 might modify or set new precedent, then CAFC would be extremely likely to look thoroughly at the JMOL on noninfringement. That would similarly be true for the JMOL on invalidity.
I have said that I doubted that CAFC would use PV1 to set new precedent because the issues in the case read to previous precedents rather than needing new ones to be established. However, the fact they are taking more than the minimum average amount of time, according to court statistics as reported on the CAFC website and summarized in an article at Patently O blog, the chances for issuing a more thorough ruling increase. Normally that can be argued as favorable to the moving party in the appeal but it is not in this case due to the overwhelming set of factual issues.
Rethinking the course of events and character of the case and posturing by the plaintiff attorneys, the longer it takes CAFC to come to a decision the more likely I think it is they will use the case to clarify recent SCOTUS and CAFC precedent.
What are the odds for new precedent? Maybe 30:70? The odds increase as time passes. Grounds for defining precedent? SCOTUS ruling on 1. obviously and 2. clear teaching of patent claims, and 3. obligation to put forward prior art.
Short interest is at 12 million shares, down from 15.4M the previous period and from 20M one year ago. Trading volume on PRKR has dwindled to about 255k daily volume pushing out days to cover to ~47. . Since the short sales likely occurred at much higher prices, large gains are on the books. At current stock price, there is only $5.2 million of profit potential left for short sellers causing some to close positions despite the odds of Qualcomm prevailing in the lawsuits. Another perspective is that at an average estimated short sale price of $11, the 0.43 left represents only ~4% of untaken profit. Its possible for PRKR to lose the PV1 and PV2 cases but do a reverse split, go on to sell a few million dollars per year in RF components, and keep shorted shares from resolving to zero. In any case, I'd expect to see short interest continue to drop.
100% foreign ownership of a US telecommunications company has never been allowed. Telecom is considered a national infrastructure and defense issue. Many countries do not allow or only allow minority foreign interest in a national carrier. The US used to adhere to a rule which limited foreign ownership to around 60%. That ceiling was raised for Softbank's acquisition of Sprint. Although the reasons for allowing the larger percentage ownership was not stated by the FCC or DOJ specifically to my knowledge, the reasons seem obvious: Japan is considered a US strategic ally that works in close cooperation with our mutual interests. And Sprint was heading towards insolvency if not bailed out. Since competitors had expressed little to no interest in buying S's spectrum or otherwise aiding the company and the regulators were reluctant to allow further consolidation between the big four, also that T-Mobile+DT were in no position to bail Sprint out of its looming financial crisis, the regulators decided to lift the limits on foreign ownership even though that may influence precedent for future foreign participation.
Another factor is that Softbank is a broadly held public company that is not seen as coming under the control of any foreign government. In other words, it poses little security risks. As part of the deal with the FCC, Masa Son/Softbank gave assurances to the US Congress and defense intelligence agency that the company would be forthcoming and cooperative on the sensitive issues. In essence, the intelligence and defense and homeland defence groups signed off on the deal to allow 80% foreign ownership.
However, the difference between ~80% and 100% is not just the 20% left in public float. This requires a higher threshold of acquiescence by the FED and cuts into political interests as well. Is it possible that the FED would approve Softbank taking Sprint private? I guess its possible but I doubt its likely and requires a new round of approvals.
carrier aggregation is not a magic wand and it is not exclusive to any carrier. All major carrier will increasingly use it as one of their technologies. The aspect of spectrum many miss is 'rolling up utilization' as a function of current market position and growth. Having lots of spectrum is good only if you can make use of it by filling it with an adequate number of paying customers to get a positive ROI. Sprint has lots of spectrum, too few subscribers to grow into it unless it finds other ways to push capacity to users more cost effectively. If spectrum were most of what it takes, then why didn't Spark fix the gab between spending money on expansion and growing debts? Spark is carrier aggregation once users have devices equipped with the newer CA capable chips.
The bloody problem is not aggregating spectrum.. Sprint needs low band it has to be used for voice, text not to aggregate its use for more broadband. the low and mid band available can't handle the growth in that direction. Sprints 12 year problem is putting together adequate 4G network technology with a more cost effective means of deployment. That persistent problem is why the company has been a money pit all these years.. that has finally caught up with it as competition has tightened the noose around their debt fat neck. .
If what you say were true, then why didn't you have that figured out before S dropped and taken part in shorting? This is not a parlor game. If anything is influential in moving a stock up or down and you say you know about it and yet did not take advantage of it, then you are missing the whole point of investing. You must work at Sprint... masters of missing the point while figuring things out well enough to pin labels on influences to the mobile network business: Network Vision. Spark... both followed competitors by a couple years too late to gain an upper hand.. the net impact, losses in the billions.
Wrong about almost everything: This is not "The Wheeler Effect". The DOJ, Department of Justice, has determined that Verizon and AT&T are borderline monopolies/duopolies, that wireless/ICT is a foundation industry that much commerce depends, and that there needs to be robust competition. They determined that the FCC should not allow the mainstream operators to consolidate down to three during a time of consolidation between segments including satellite, cable, media content, and Internet companies.
Why has Sprint failed to be competitive when, for years, it held the largest expanse of spectrum? How can you blame that on the government? The government did not force Sprint to spend $35+B on Nextel, forgoing acquisition of 700MHz spectrum and a cleaner shift into LTE.
You get free enterprise wrong: the wireless operators are given a monopoly on licensed spectrum. Its up to these companies to compete on a profitable basis or fail and face the consequences. Its up to investors to choose wisely or other investors will take their money and get to choose for them. That is how capitalism works... the government regulators were established by laws to prevent monopolies from forming and promote innovation through competition. TMUS is doing that, why not Sprint?
The telecommunications is among sectors that have sold off steeply. The international investment pundits warn that China's markets may continue to slide, putting pressure on other markets. So maybe this will continue and become like past major market sell-offs.. going deeper than many suspect. The main thing investors should not do is complacently 'catch a falling knife' in hopes of finding bargains. If inclined to buy, do what pros do, set in program trade stop losses or hedge with options.
However, it is times like these when smart traders make a lot of money. The average retail investors are among those usually on the losing rather than winning side partly because they do not know how to protect if their timing proves wrong.
As entire sectors sell off it tends to set up greater odds for a snap-back among the component stocks, even the stinkers like Sprint (S).
T-Mobile is providing them with competition. The free market should let the weak players perish and get absorbed for a few cents by the stronger players. Seriously, that likely won't happen: The FCC and DOJ will become inclined to allow Sprint to be acquired for as it may otherwise go bankrupt.
That is not the only questions. Did PV have sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude that Prucnal's testimony that there could be infringement through the alleged energy transfer sampling method using ANY capacitor. An expert witness can claim China is buried under 200 feet of ice and Greenland is a tropical oasis. If he has proof of that that fulfills the requirements of the court, then the jury is free to rule that the expert is right.
I do not read much of anything into the request for the JMOL transcript: this is common practice.
Much better than your money loosing wisdom. If you were to swallow your ego and follow my suggestions, I will make you money.
My posts are crude, arrogant, and sophomoric.. childish.. I admit it.. because that is about the only way to respond to what you have come to respond to well laid out facts and logical conclusions. There is no way I, Fud.fighter or anyone else can appeal by using facts and logic... because your brain is fundamentally sick imo.