One question that hangs out there is whether CAFC will issue a ruling on Qualcomm's JMOL on invalidty of Parkervision's patents. I think there is a good chance the appeals court will remand the case on JMOL back to the district court for further hearings on the question of validity after ruling in favor of Qualcomm that upholds Judge Dalton's decision to reverse the jury verdict. Someone I have corresponded with thinks CAFC has about a 50/50 chance of directly ruling Parkervision's patents invalid.
That may predate a ruling by the PTAB IPR panel, which I think is almost certain to rule PV's contested patents invalid.
The impact of these rulings is almost mute at this point because PRKR will fall apart/go bankrupt when CAFC rules against the company on appeal.
What war? Parkervision has lost the battle which ends the imaginary war.
Regardless of what mode the circuits operate, Parkervision/McKoolaide failed to provide proof that energy was integrated and transfers to the baseband. No circuit, no simulation, no case for reversal of J. Dalton's decision on appeal.
Parkervision's patent claims are overly broad which is partly why it is so easy to find prior art. However, the integration of energy from the carrier wave to incorporate the baseband does not work: it did work in crystal radios because the carrier wave energy allows an unpowered circuit/radio to achieve a a bias voltage that powers a small speaker. However, that carrier wave energy includes all the noise that occurs and no additional information than what is in the baseband signal. All the pops screeches etc. you hear in a crystal radio is due to the impact of incorporating energy from the carrier wave. Modern radio circuits achieve close to the practical limits of Shannon-Hartley signaling efficiency. The high degree of circuit integration has done away with the claimed advantages of lower power due to low noise amplifiers used in 'conventional' RF such as that used by Qualcomm, ie. quad input dual-balanced mixers. Introducing power from the carrier wave, a method patented in 1906, gums up the works: it introduces a path for noise that limits dynamic range, reduces SNR despite what the goofballs at Parkerscamavision say.
Qualcomm had to work to figure that out.. which is pretty amazing but unstandable for a large organization with several moving parts/people. Just because they screwed up initially did not mean that PV was right. PV has never been right and their patents have been invalid since first applied for.
This is done except for you fools still trying to believe in the fantasyland story.
It's possible for Sprint to now jump forward with a partnership to use the 2.6GHz band. A problem that goes unanswered is where Sprint once had money and borrowing capacity to spend $35B to acquire Nextsmell Netwrecks, they now have smaller marketshare, $37B in debts, almost no borrowing capacity, no 'window of opportunity' left before competitors exploit the emerging opportunities. Verizon and AT&T are now jumping through that window left open by Sprintsy to exploit TV/media markets. Masa Son/SB may want to do so now but would start going about three after Verizon got started.
What may make it finally happen is that BODs and management tend to jump when someone lights a match under their arsenios.
The cable companies hold more fiber in metro areas than any other single group. Verizon and AT&T come in next. Some municipalities and multiple county-wide areas hold significant grids. However, there is limited metro areas that have built metro grids nearly to the extent it has been done in Japan and dense population areas in Asia. One advantage China Unicom had was the relative low cost and ease of installing fiber optic and smallcell and C-RAN. The United States is more difficult to gain rights of way and install fiber, and several times as expensive.
That puts cable companies in somewhat of a unique position: cable is easier to run and largely already in place. DOCSIS 3.1 is not a perfect solution but comes close enough to fiber capabilities. There is some problems with the installed plant in ability to support multiple points... cable is often ganged runs: even though DOCSIS 3.1 can theoretically now support up to 1.2Gbps, practical use will be much less than that. However, the practical needs of a C-RAN remote head is much less than 1Gbps. And also, where the density is highest, in dense urban areas, there tends to be more deployed fiber. So, if a partnership with cable companies is part of the new plan, it can be done using a combination of fiber, gigabit wireless, DOCSIS 3.1 and, perhaps, some GigE, Gigabit Ethernet.
A major problem is the cost of deploying smallcells/C-RAN in a country the size and as developed as the US. Cable companies have installed cable runs to homes and many businesses. A C-Ran base station of smallcell router.Home eNodeB, are small and require only a few watts of power. Units are available that are pretty dummy proof - have self-alignment and easy installation instructions. So, its possible to do what I've been saying could be done: deploy RoofTop, wall, and in-building units that work on LTE and WiFi networks. While it would have been nice if Sprint had done this before their competitors started doing it ...
Softbank was among the first and initially the largest to use a 'C-RAN' approach to build a 'massively smallcell' architecture RAN, Radio Access Network. China Mobile has since built the largest C-RAN and is credited with copining that specific term for the architecture. Prior to that, China mobile forged an alliance with Intel, Chinese research institutes and infrastructure equipment suppliers to develop their approach to the method.
What is C-RAN. You can Google it and find wikipedia, 3GPP, suppliers and blogs that discuss the approach. Basically it is connecting a headend device, a base station's antenna, power supply, RF, to a centralized server farm that contains the baseband signal and post-processing as software that runs on generic processors. The results in the remote units being made small and having less to go wrong.
How could Softbank use C-RAN as a primary architecture to deploy about 200,000 base stations in a country the size and population of California when Sprint and other operators only deploy 20-30,000 macro base station in the USA? And how could China Mobile go on to deploy over 1.2 million base stations using mostly C-RAN? Because those advanced wireless countries have deployed 10X-20X more fiber optic to homes and nodes throughout their countries as a foundation infrastructure.
Why hasn't Sprintsy Wintsy done that in the USA? Because de don' have no fiber 'everywhere'. But Claure is going to Japan, the pioneer of C-RAN to get some. Get some what? $50 billion to build to the same level of gird fiber optic? No. However, getting off the critical warpath, its likely they can come up with some sort of plan.. that might even include doing business with the devil: either with Ergen/DISH or the cable companies who can deliver 300-900Mbps using DOCSIS 3.1 over the next five years... 'near Gigabits everywhere' will work for C-RAN. Softbank can deliver magic to Claure. Money probably won't be a freebie gift. Fiber does not exist or cheap
Tampa does not deny much of anything: Parkervision, Jeff Parker, Tampa et al insist that they can provide a blanket explanation that energy is integrated in a capacitor used in an RF circuit, in this case the TX 'jammer' filter capacitor, and that the capacitor accumulates energy (just any energy will do: energy that needs to be bypassed? sure. Noise energy? why not. Since no proof is provided, anything going into the capacitor is OK. The carrier wave does not contain the transmitted information, it is the carrier of the baseband communications bearing signal),
Repeated until everyone is sick of it: Parkervision did not provide a simulation that, according to their theory of operation, show energy from the carrier being accumulated into the TX capacitor and then 'mixed' or otherwise combined with the baseband signal that PV admits emerges out of the mixer. If it happens it should have been able to have been shown in a representative circuit or simulation of Qualcomm's circuit. Why the heck would Parkervision not have provided that? If that does not strike you as ludicrous by now, aren't you overdue for a visit to your shrink?
Are you kidding?
1) Google has said they will not buy a major operator.. it is not the business they are in and it would go against their corporate philosophy and market position of being fair and open to the markets they serve... namely the operators and media service channels. If you do not understand that, then you need an education in business.
2) Sprint is not growing. Google or any other entity (company or richest man on earth type entity) wants to see a return on their investment. Why buy Sprint? So that you have a place to spend billions hoping to someday see a return? There are, as Softbank has found, better categories of business to invest. Softbank has some strategic reasons to own Sprint that includes achieving larger international scale of mobile infrastructure and devices they were already engaged. However, the priorities for the conglomerate have shifted to the faster growth areas of eCommerce, eBanking, micro-payments, social networking, mobile applications, gaming, etc. That puts Softbank increasing on a footing to sell to and through other mobile operators similar to Google. Both find themselves wanting to put money where growth will occur.. on top of ICT networks (the converged wired+wireless networks and devices). As such, owning the networks comes at a cost of competing with their customers. The largest operators are increasingly trying to 'roll their own'. Keep up with the news: Verizon, AT&T, China Mobile, and other world leading operators have acquired or developed services that increasingly compete in areas Google and Softbank now or wish to operate.
You might argue that since Verizon wants to roll their own payment systems, content and other services that the entire industry is converging such that Google should be in the infrastructure business. However, if so, why Sprint? Why not acquire T-Mobile which demonstrates growth and trending profits?
Ignorant excuse for repeated failure on every count. If you think that is a valid excuse, you are crazy and need to be locked up in a Florida retirement funny farm.
Let's shift from the often distorted details of the technology and legal battles: Parkervision's track record alone is reason not to invest in this stock, sell if you were foolish enough to buy in the first place. I dare for anyone to find a book or tutorial on investing that says to invest in companies that never show results for product or license sales and have repeatedly failed to deliver on promises. Then there are promises for what the technology was supposed to deliver: lower cost, higher SNR, smaller size and less complexity. If that were true, then why hasn't Parkervision products been taking over a large portion of marketshare in RF? Your past excuses that Qualcomm prevents PV from selling stuff is terribly absurd. I worked in electronics sales and know that not to be a rationale argument. However, from the textbook instruction on what to invest and what to stay clear/sell, Parkervision gets put on the list of 'do not touch with a 20 foot pole'.
Now that the District Court has ruled against Parkervision, effectively for presenting a sham 'storybook' case, and the questioning and demeanor of the CAFC panel makes it certain they will also find that Parkervision's technology was not proven to be infringed and, maybe, the patents are invalid, you say that 'CAFC could decide either way'. By the books on investing there should be zero investors in PRKR. Those that are left are, imo, complete idiots but that is besides the point. If the remaining ones simply pick up any book on fundamental investing and ask from a fresh perspective 'should I buy or sell' the text book answer is an emphatic 'SELL'.
Sorry, but it is a slam dunk. The major pivot going into the appeal was whether CAFC would agree with Judge Dalton that empirical evidence was needed to support PV's theory of infringement. If the judges indicated by their questioning that they were viewing the legal requirements for the jury's finding of a verdict in favor of PV similar to Judge Dalton's ruling on JMOL, then the case would be over because Parkervision does not have such evidence and, furthermore, they conceded that the baseband was generated at the output of the mixer. The appeals panel indicated that they are viewing the requirements similar to J. Dalton. They went further in their questioning, indicating, perhaps, that they will entertain Qualcomm's motion to reconsider their JMOL on invalidity of the patents.
It is a slam dunk because Parkervision has needed a big win. QCOM will win on the appeal and might move forward on patent invalidity. A win in any regard will take the chances of funding away from PRKR which seals the company's fate.
Why not hop on the next string theory membrane (brane) transport and head over to CAFC in a place named Washington, DC, USA. There you can enter the chambers of the judges hearing the Parkervision appeal and tell them why you are right and what they are considering as the factors in this case do not apply on your brane. Who knows, they may determine that you can win in your alternative world while Qualcomm wins in this one. Go for it...
The DC case was ruled in favor of Qualcomm... you still do not face up to that. PRKR must prove their tech is used. QCOM's assertion that their design is a mixer has to be disproven with evidence. You continue to have the basics wrong: It is no longer up to Qualcomm to prove they use a mixer because Parkervision never proved otherwise. For the jury verdict to be reinstated, Parkerscamavision had to get the CAFC judges to go along with its legal theory that juries can rule based on expert witness opinions without having empirical evidence that meets guidelines established by precedent.
I understand that in your plane of reality proof is not required to win verdicts and it up to defendants to provide the proof. However, the appeal is happening here in this dimensional plane we call earth in a place we call the United Sates where we beings called humans have established things we call laws and legal precedent. It is up to Parkervision to provide the proof that Qualcomm's circuits operate other than the way they appear and that Parkervision's own expert and Fairy Dust technologist Sorrells imagines it does.
Maybe when Qualcomm wins the appeal the opposite will be taking place in your plane of reality... you will have won. Good luck.
You complete loser idiot. You took that post that was in jest in answer to the juvenile accusations made on this dweeb web board and pose it as my saying I said I work for Masa Son? Do you know how to read? Read it lame brain... if you cannot tell I was ridiculing you and other 'perpetual longs' who had bashed me then you need to have a brain transplant.
Your guy is wrong and is leading you over the cliff (actually, you have already stepped over the edge.. he is simply handing you a lead weight to speed your descent).
"Jury was also told that ParkerVision's patents does NOT HOLD between samples but is continuously charging the capacitor during samples and in a controlled discharge is discharging in-between samples. Parker's discharge between samples is PART of the ENERGY SAMPLER and IMPROVES the baseband."
The carrier wave contains no data. How does recovery of energy from the carrier 'IMPROVES the baseband"? If your guy understands signaling and has studied the patents, he should come to understand that accumulating power from the carrier imparts no signaling benefits. PRKR fails to show how this is done because it does not work. If your guy knows how to use PV's patents, he should do so.. Parkervision has yet to figure it out.
You have been proven to be a liar: I have never said I have ties to Masa Son idiot. Why do you bring this up repeatedly? Because you are losing people money with incessant 'buy. buy, buy' urging on the stock in your own self interest. It appears to be your way of taking attention from your own dismal hype record.
Bullshisa. You want this board to be staged like a adolescent pep rally: labeling someone who posts an even handed or negative view on the investment as a basher while you pose as the good guys. However, your view is that of a con artist... get suckers in the door with hype that you benefit from. Anyone who reads my posts consistently knows what I've posted has made investors money, what you and other perpetual long believers post has resulted in losses and failure to take profits when the stock has had spikes higher... which is nice for supporting a company you work for, poor choice if posting on what is supposed to be an open investment board.
Seems that about 1/2 of posts are dedicated to personal attacks... labeling opposing views as bashers. I still read posts by those who I consider stock promoters because they point out one of the viewpoints that should ALWAYS be considered. Your attempts to silence opposing viewpoints fails to do anything for the stock... because Sprint's performance has been the reason the price is lower than where most longs bought.
let's have a contest over the next year.. we all post when to buy and when to sell/take profits and see who comes out on top over the next six and 12 month periods. If not willing, everyone will know why.
Let's look at the facts: Sprint was acquired by Softbank for $22 billion and probably at least another $4 billion in resources diverted from SB and lost opportunity costs of who knows how much more. Thus far Sprint has lost Softbank time, management, and capital beyond its initial price tag and remains a work in progress in need of a turn around. On the bright side, Sprint may partly catch fire if the company adopts long needed changes in how it goes about deployments, particularly in the 2.6GHz band 41 spectrum. Otherwise, losses are scheduled as far as analysts can see.
Sprint is now valued at $19 billion by the market while having almost $30 billion in debt and rising. Ignoring the mounting debt, Softbank is negative about $7B on the investment. And Sprint needs an additional $12-$20 billion to invest in competitive networks and services in hopes of supercharging growth and reducing costs.
Or Sprint-SB could go for what has been "behind door number 3" and chart a new course as urged to do over the many years the company has continued to slide downhill into debt, losses of subscribers and, more recently modest improvements and paying for customers with more losses that financial analysts say is unsustainable. Time has run out for bandages to patch things up. Major surgery in how Sprint goes about deploying and building its customer base is now long overdue... and faces an uphill battle.
While friends at Google can help them, Sprint faces a struggle only they can take on. Or SB could try to hold a fire sale of spectrum or the entire company rather than throw more money into what now looks like a bottomless pit? I am painting the picture in dark shades of black and grey to ward off the sharezombies around here who suck at readers brains.
Oh, I see, a new identity/poser, er. poster... your only post is about me! 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" ...however, in this case it adds no value to a discussion of Sprint (S).