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

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 634 posts  |  Last Activity: 18 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Tampa - HOW can a capacitor output baseband?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 2, 2015 10:35 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 2, 2015 2:50 PM Flag

    Da problemo is 1. you are discussing a document that is outside of the case and cannot be used in the case. 2. Parkervision has not provided such measurements of waveforms, or other acceptable evidence which I had said was necessary since before judge Dalton ruled that there was not sufficient evidence the jury can reasonably use to rule in favor of Parkervision.

    It is nice that PV, after losing the case, has come up with a white paper that portends to show how their technology works. To be used in a case, such evidence would have to be subject to examination of the defendants experts and the court and cross examination of PV's experts.

    The white paper is a fair attempt to paint red lipstick on the pig. It comes too late to be examined and used in PV 1. Under scrutiny of those expert in the field that white paper will fall apart if used in PV 2.

  • Reply to

    AT&T challenges Comcast: Miami, FL area....

    by mr_whigglee Jul 2, 2015 1:51 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 2, 2015 2:27 PM Flag

    Apples and rhinoceroses market comparisons.

    It is common for articles to jump to conclusions, using pumped up headlines "Huge competitors will fight it out to the death by offering 20 megatons of bandwidth!!!"

    Wait a second. Fiber optic has captured less than 5% overall marketshare despite many years of headlines exclaiming how Verizon, Comcast, Google, AT&T or Joe's Beanery and Fiber Optic Company will offer it to millions of consumers. The hype starts with the words 'covered' or 'offered to' millions of users. Verizon has offered FiOS fiber optic to millions of users.. but after years of efforts pulled back after netting only 1.2 M subs... a fraction of a percent of the US population. What fiber operators call 'covered' usually means 'runs by'... a fiber optic that runs down the street or a nearby street is considered covering the household or business. However, the cost of bringing the fiber optic to the home premises can run from $1,200 to $3,000. Which is why Verizon is catching fire in NYC as not complying with their contract with the city to extend service to more consumers.

    Offering theoretical limits of 2Gbps makes for brilliant headlines. The reality is that the service is pricey and will result in one out of 100 households having it. In a city like Miami/Dade county area, the density might be as high #$%$ out of 100 households... in some places higher. How does that compare to or impact mobile operators that you may have investments? Mobile saturation has already reached over 100% in terms of number of subscriptions per population. The data rates and cost per data is much better on fiber optic.. but the impact on mobile is low because not many people will buy it.. and those who do will also buy mobile service... because they tend to be the more affluent consumers.

  • teamrep teamrep Jul 2, 2015 1:50 PM Flag

    They and the rest of the industry have understood why AT&T's bid to acquire DTV was likely to be approved while other mergers, including T's attempt to acquire T-Mobile failed: DTV is in an industry that is considered to be headed toward long-term obsolescence. Thus the leading question of consolidation of markets is lessened as a concern.

    Mergers between ICT, information and communications technology, companies rough listing of probability:

    1. Serving different market needs, such as mobile communications and satellite television in which one of the industries is destined to become obsolete or marginalized over time.
    2. As in 1. except both segments will remain viable over time but which offer advantages to consumers if allowed to merge.
    3. As in 1 but the segments the merging companies operate are distinct and not expected to offer much advantage to consumers except, perhaps, speculative improvements in capital and service efficiencies.
    4. Companies that are in like business segments. The arguments for allowing the merger within segments of the converging ICT industry is to allow the combined entity better economics and ability to innovate against the already consolidated market leaders who, arguably have reached the status of 'duopolists' who are no longer pressured to reduce pricing or innovate commensurate with advances in technology and the ability to do so that their position should otherwise provide.

    Dependent issues such as acquisition through auctions or amalgamation of spectrum can often be overlaid on the above to judge how regulators view pending decisions such as rules for auctions or sale of spectrum.

  • Reply to

    Tampa - HOW can a capacitor output baseband?

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 2, 2015 10:35 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 2, 2015 11:35 AM Flag

    Parkervision's argument based on the various testimony and cross-examinations is that the carrier wave enters the capacitor and generates the baseband. It is not clearly explained how that happens: Judge Dalton and CAFC asked questions that PV was not able to answer about what mechanisms is used to generate the baseband or how it is shown other than in the opinion of Prucnal.

    What PV appears to say is that the carrier wave containing the baseband signal enters the capacitor and then the baseband exits/is generated at the output of the capacitor. The carrier wave energy is somehow transferred to the baseband signal. There are no direct measurements to show that nor is there a simulation or example circuit to show how that occurs.

    What PV shows is the patents (unclearly) explain a process by which energy is said to be accumulated in a capacitor from a carrier wave that is encoded/summed with the baseband signal. The baseband allegedly is imparted with energy from the carrier wave as it is decoded/extracted from the carrier. Miraculously, the baseband is not imparted with unwanted noise.. even though any accumulation process aggregates 'energy', or as Tampa likes to describe it, electrons in an indiscriminate way, the alleged result is that pristine baseband signal emerges. The way mixers extract the baseband from the carrier wave is well understood: a LO, local oscillator, signal is summed with the carrier. The LO is tuned to "exactly the same frequency" as is possible as the baseband signal. The baseband signal emerges from the mixer and the carrier wave is dropped out. Its important to note that much literature deals with limiting noise and out-of-phase signals such as might occur with feedback loops or secondary circuit reactances. Minute impacts are considered such as may be caused by stray line resistance, capacitance and inductances. Introducing a secondary/auxiliary circuit such as PV's TX, is problematic if it were shown to be used.

  • Reply to

    How could the Appeal Court ignore this ruling?

    by fud.fighter2 Jun 29, 2015 8:13 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 2, 2015 10:06 AM Flag

    Tampa, this is not a hearing to determine if Qualcomm's circuits contain some of the required limiting claim elements or mappings to components. Parkervision must line up each and every claim element and support each and every one with precedent mandated evidence. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff in patent cases - it is not OK to to say Q's circuit contains some of the things that are contained in PV's patents.

    You take isolated issues and try to construe these as relevant. Sampling of signals is not patented by Parkervision, period. Sampling, which uses switches to gate the sampled signal, using capacitors, all of these elements are found in many examples of prior art. PV had to have shown not that there is a bucket filled with parts that if assembled in the precise manor, using the prescribed values and timing, could be construed to infringe their patents. PV had to show the exact arrangement and show how this occurred in an example circuit, an exact simulation of Q's not of PV's circuit, or measurement showing the carrier wave and baseband waveforms as they entered into (composite waveform) and exited (constituent waveforms) the TX (or any other) capacitor.

    One of the issues that defendants are already presenting in Parkervision 2 is that PV's patents are vague, ie. do not teach the alleged method clearly. We see that in PV 1 that the explanation for ETS, energy transfer sampling is vague: a current goes into the TX capacitor of unknown composition and exits as some undefined entity based on opinions of the company and its expert. That did not suffice evidentiary requirements. With the latest Supreme Court rulings, it does not measure up to requirements for clear and concise patent claims.

    Fud.Fighter.. why not repost the proof points required to show infringement? Tampa needs a refresher course.

  • Reply to

    NO! New title is "MF: Thick as Thieves"

    by wallstrip Jun 30, 2015 11:24 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 1, 2015 6:33 PM Flag

    Parkervision and patent litigators thick as thieves. So what? Its up to PV to prove that MF's involvement with Qualcomm, which many if not most similar component companies have done business, is tied to his or RPX's filing of the IPRs. People or companies involved in the industry are not precluded from filing IPRs due to current or former business relationships with the firms accused of infringement or that might become targets for a lawsuit.

    This is another diversion from the central issues: if PV's patents cannot stand up to an IPR challenge they should be declared invalid by the USPTO PTAB IPR. If there is a quid-quo-pro arrangement that comes out of PV's discovery, then it will something to talk about imo. The IPR's are jointly pursued by RPX and Mike Farmwald. Its doubtful that both will be declared unsuited to have filed the IPRs imo.

    This is interesting from the perspective of understanding how the IPR process works in practice. This is a fairly recent development that has consequences for future patent litigation.

  • Reply to

    The undisputed infringement criterion - Update

    by fud.fighter2 Jun 25, 2015 1:05 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 1, 2015 11:12 AM Flag

    The plaintiff is required by the court to show infringement. There is no broken wire assertion made by Qualcomm, that is your and PV's excuse which both courts have shot down because you have no proof of energy transfer sampling in the capacitor and because Prucnal, as Fud.Fighter points out, has admitted the filter appears as a high impedance to the low frequency baseband while appearing as a low impedance to the high frequency carrier wave. Thus, it was Parkervision who provided evidence that the filter does indeed do what Qualcomm claims: baseband signals, by Prucnal's testimony, does fly by the filter while higher frequencies, such as transmitted carrier waves, harmonics and carrier signal feedback loops, switching and resistive, inductive reactances are intentionally filtered out so that a higher signal to noise level is achieved to be used in downstream circuits, ie. A/D conversion and signal processing.

    Parkervision does not have the steps/points required by the MARKMAN to show infringement and, furthermore, conceded that baseband is produced by the mixer.

    Once this was understood, a credit to DC Judge Dalton, he had no reasonable choice but to find for Qualcomm on JMOL on noninfringement. CAFC, under the widely acknowledged stricter Fed Rules of Evidence in patent cases (Florida district courts have not adopted the Fed Rules but have established similar guidelines through precedent). Judge Dalton may have thought that if he ruled against QCOM on the JMOL the CAFC was destined to reverse the case in favor of Q... so he made the decision to do so himself.

    Your hope CAFc will reverse J. Dalton's ruling is not based on facts in evidence and theories used in the case and will not be decided here. It has been decided by DC and since CAFC looks more stringently at evidence, will not be reversed.

  • Reply to

    Realistically even if PRKR goes up 200%.

    by saria_98 Jul 1, 2015 8:09 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jul 1, 2015 10:16 AM Flag

    Even though PRKR will not win the appeal or the second case and will see the patent claims reduced, imo, the stock is not a short candidate because few traders can short it this low and the profits to the downside are largely exhausted. Those already short may wish to wait for PRKR to get delisted and head close to zero before covering. However, there are greener pastures going short or long.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 10:23 PM Flag

    insights to new methods to measure, correct, extend, and compliment signaling that has combined with other necessary or complimentary technologies to be enabling. The industry would not be where it is today without Qualcomm's 35,000+ patents. The industry has been modestly side-channeled with no cooperation in exposing the methodology in a straightforward manner that is able to be proven.

    That is why all judges hearing this case are obliged to rule and question as they have.

    If tampa cannot answer intelligently to those questions asked over the past 2+ years, why do we all waste our time reading his posts? Maybe he wants us to admit he has confounded us with stupidity and give up.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 10:17 PM Flag

    As I wrote that I was picturing FrankenTampa's brain cavity: it is hollowed out or has a solution with a relative permittivity to serve as a storage media for charge. Perhaps it stores more than just a charge, a 'signal'... two week ago, for a long time, it was carrier wave energy that, unexplainably, is transferred into a astronomically high SNR of baseband reconstruction. The erroneous assumption of Parkervision and Tampa plus assundry brainless morphs is that Parkervision is not required to explain how their method works in a a way that is confirmed by normal means.

    Each and every time that PV's attorney's have attempted to explain the inequities, first in the DC court in JMOL hearings and oral arguments, and then in the documents and oral hearing at CAFC, McKool/Parkervision/Sterne failed absolutely.

    What does it matter what Tampa says if he does not answer the questions raised by Judge Dalton and confirmed as the line of resolution by CAFC? What Tampa, Fud.Fighter or teamep have to say that is not to the point or to address and push aside sidesteps is irrelevant.

    Parkervision must have provided proof of infringement or PRKR 1 is lost. No new evidence if there were new evidence, which there is not, can be brought into the case. Any reasonable person, particularly one who stands up to say they do know what is what, now admits that since no evidence can be submitted that PRKR has lost.

    On Parkervision II, the chances are made more remote, compounding the levels of proof needed by expanding to multiple products, instances and breadth of applications. The level of proof for each instance multiplies to an astronomical level. This is clearly an attempt at extortion which Qualcomm will not stand because it would jeopardize their major source of income, their own portfolio of honest patents that, even if many are minor contributions, as a whole have been enabling of the wireless industry. Qualcomm has such notable thinkers as Viterbi who contributed con't

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 9:46 PM Flag

    Smokescreen alert!!!

    FrankenTampa now has 25% duty cycle stored in his brain, coursing in on the ETS into his capacitor (flat charge storage media called his cell rotted brain). Next week it will be some other equally disjointed concoction.

    Fess up FrankenTampa: either show the evidence deemed by the courts at large and Judge Dalton of the District Court circuit in specific or admit by your sleazy tactic of posting incongruous assertions not involved, or only to a minor degree, in the legal process.

    You are so lame you stink worse than Jeffrey Parker and Sterne.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 6:06 PM Flag

    Miami Florida is like Dallas, Phoenix, and some other showcase cities.. almost flat and not heavily forested... and the local governments tend to work well with operators. Sprint's problem is "Lumpy Gravy" - coverage that sucks hind tit. Doing well in Miami is a good thing.. for Miami. It proves nothing in the overall context of the competitive challenge to do well everywhere.. OK, not everywhere but in more places .. or, at least, as many places as competitors.. and to not break the bank doing so. Spintsy wintsy has to prove they can do the deed in the majority of locations competitors cover... not just lumpy gravy locations like Miami.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 5:50 PM Flag

    LOL! You loser!!!

    You have lost the case, period.

    Your explanations are back drafting attempts to patch up failed Parkervision strategy. It failed buzzard. You can quibble over what I write, trying to use that as an excuse for PV failing in court.. is only a feeble attempt to divert the discussion from what Fud.Fighter has pointed out very deliberately.. this case was determined based on PV's failure to provide actual evidence of infringement. Your points skirt that, coming up with banal references taken out of context.

    What are you trying to do? Convince a few idiots who might remain gullible enough to buy this fart stock? If you are trying to make a valid point, you fail entirely. Even if the point about 25% duty cycling was valid, which it laughably is not, you must connect each and every dot (point) spelled out for proof of infringement. You/Parkervision cannot do that.

    Why do you insist on being a #$%$? Anyone following your posts knows your shyster jumping around from one failed point to the next.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 5:01 PM Flag

    Wrong, just wrong. Your definition of what is and what is not a double balanced mixer is a crock. Mixers have evolved over the past 20 years.

    You just do not understand how ridiculous your statements are. I can picture myself sitting down next to the inventor of CMOS receivers/sensors that are used in very exacting instruments such as oscilloscopes and OTDRs, optical time-domain reflectometers, discussing this exact subject - use of different sampling periods. The use in quad input double-balanced mixers is only one example of sampling of signals in which sampling phase timing and duration are concerned. Parkervision's patent are not on mixers per se. The core D2D EST claims read to a signal recovery method that is claimed to apply to almost everything FD Sorrells imagination can wander to.

    You are so full of misinformation. You should admit you limitation and speak to what you understand... which is how to lose money believing in tech stocks.

  • Reply to

    What the 3 Appellate Judges Should Read

    by longprkr May 15, 2015 2:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 1:45 PM Flag

    Here is another truly ignorant post. PRKR longs have a history of seizing on erroneous assertions like this: "THIS ALONE PROVES QUALCOMM ACCUSED PRODUCTS CANNOT BE USING A PRIOR ART double balanced mixer-setup in any mode. Prior art mixers DO NOT USE 25% DUTY CYCLE OPERATION! PERIOD." To believe this one must disbelieve papers written about double-balanced mixers that describe 25% duty cycle.

    However, the assertion that using 25% duty cycle infringes on PV's patents is false. PV does not hold patents on use of 25% duty cycle, PERIOD (idiot). Each and every of the claim elements determined in the much ballyhooed Markman must be shown to be used.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 1:32 PM Flag

    Where are you getting your information? Hope you are not relying on Yahoo's outdated info. NASDAQ has among the best and most up-to-date free stock information: it shows an average price target of about 4.90 for Sprint (S). The momentum of analysts forecasts is down: 2016 EPS has moved down from a loss of $0.30 to a loss of $0.47.. so much for the overall impact of "Claure's disruptive momentum"

    ... again, long investors should either trade the ups and downs or wait for the hyped up 'disruptive momentum' to show itself. Claure is overseeing changes at Sprint. Some of them have the potential, which can be an easily abused word, to shift sales momentum in enough of a positive direction that it actually delivers a positive ROI for a change, (yea really). However, investors should be more than a wee bit skeptical about momentum: thus far the momentum is resulting in projections for increased spending despite cuts in other areas. Investors should not forget the basic rationale for investing in an enterprise: to get more out than you put in... its called an ROI, return on investment. Unfortunately, the NASDAQ/NYSE do not reward investors for momentum in hype, board posts, spending that results in losses, favorable tabulations of network performance, etc. Instead, there is this thing called financial results... for some nutty reason markets expect it.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 30, 2015 10:00 AM Flag

    Wrong, wrong, wrong... bankrupting wrong.

    " One must study the circuits operation dictated by the source and load impedances, the capacitor value, and the switching rate and aperture." Wrong. One can have the following elements that are found in the prior art: low impedance load and small cap value, sampling at various parts of the cycle and durations (sampling periods) or using variable sampling, 25% sampling duty cycle, other duration of duty cycle, I and Q signals that are not continuous, ie. are sampling of the signal.

    You noob!!! Sampling of signals was done years before PV. You fall into the trap of claiming much prior art. All independent claims must be used in the method described in PV's patents before there is infringement.

    What you describe is insane. That makes half+ of RF in the world infringing... even though the designs originated several years before this little puke company thought of getting in cahoots with Sterne to ponzi up the runaway patent system and stock market.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 6:22 PM Flag

    Just because you keep repeating does not make it so. Your failure to understand what is required in a patent trial is comical to me... not so much to those who have lost almost all of their money.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 3:54 PM Flag

    It is up to the plaintiff to present their case that includes the accepted forms of proof that the defendant Qualcomm infringes. Q presented sufficient evidence, enough to get PV's expert witness to concede on all major points of the defense including how a mixer operates including how Q's mixer operates, namely to produce the baseband. You may not have found that crowd pleasing by your biased, ignorant standards, but it has worked out to win the case. I had thought that Qualcomm's case strategy was designed to set up for an appeal to CAFC where the rules of evidence would have swung in Q's favor and the bogus drama staged by Parkervision would, by and large, be cast aside. However, Judge Dalton, who longs once were in love with, had the wisdom to understand that Parkerscamavision has no evidence to make their storyline case stick with anyone other than rubes like yourselves.

  • Reply to

    To Tampa

    by overbrook10 Jun 28, 2015 5:42 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 29, 2015 3:46 PM Flag

    What part of 'burden of proof' do you fools fail to understand?

68.710.00(-0.01%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT