It boils down to the ability of these companies to leverage their current assets and market positions to gain share in a positive way... that is not to blow out the bottom line by 'buying business' while building for a sustainable future. T-Mobile has expanded their networks, lowered pricing, engaged in colorful and aggressive marketing campaign that has developed subscriber momentum. DISH has amassed a considerable amount of spectrum that remains open for fresh deployments or relatively easy transfer and use by a mobile operator. Because T-Mobile can expand into additional spectrum that fits in with already developed networks without forcing subscribers to change out current devices or experience poor interim service disruptions, they are relatively on a 'glide path' of continued service growth that has fair-good prospects to continue recent gains in subscribers and revenue. Moreover, this also has fair prospects for becoming profitable rather than merely a short term fix or a situation in which management is 'buying business' by falsely lowering prices regardless of the cost of delivering added capacity and new services.
DISH has greenfield spectrum that may well gain in value as nearby AWS spectrum goes up for auction, thus placing a more recent/direct comparable price tag on the spectrum. Verizon's rumored interest in acquiring DISH's spectrum might be met by reluctance on Ergen's part to sell it until after the auction. If he waits until after the auction, all potential large blocks of mid-range spectrum will be exhausted, leaving his spectrum as the last hope for any operator wishing to expand their mid-band holdings. While more spectrum might eventually become available, its likely to take up to ten years before that occurs.
Charlie Ergen has consistently said that he/DISH would either entertain selling off some or all of the company spectrum not used for the core satellite TV service, or selling the entire company, or acquiring a wireless operator, or being acquired. In other words, he has not closed off any option so long as it results in a gain. Thus it cannot be said that DISH and Sprint-Softbank will ever hook up in a major way. The trial may be just that - a short-term limited working relationship to explore deployment of hybrid satellite-broadband-mobile services that, if proven viable, could serve as the basis for a business relationship to emerge.
A DISH+Sprint merger, service or joint network and spectrum access partnership that might develop might be dropped if, for example, Verizon were to acquire a majority of DISH's spectrum. If Verizon were to acquire DISH outright, then no relationship would be likely to survive regardless of how the trials test out.
Among the major goals of Sprint is getting to a richer mix/balance of spectrum to 'play with'. Much of Sprint's current competitive problems stem from lack of a similar mix of low, mid and high band spectrums, with the obvious overweighting in the high frequency band.
By either acquiring more low and, possibly, mid-band spectrum in the auctions or/and by acquiring TMUS, Sprint would open up much greater flexibility to migrate networks, and better prepare for future advances in technology and the service and device markets that depend on them.
While there are no quick fixes that would place Sprint in a position as an equal in overall mix of services with Verizon and AT&T, major alternate steps forward can be taken. Its not a situation in which Sprint absolutely has to acquire T-Mobile in the near term in order to become more competitive. Its also not absolutely necessary to acquire 600 MHz incentive auction spectrum... because either one of these could cancel out some of the advantages of taking the other. The result of either move can be a more competitive spectrum portfolio that affords ease of network migration, better harmonization of devices with domestic and international band plans,
Sprint should emerge from the events that transpire over the next ~18 months to a) Have a more competitive spectrum mix, b) be on a more certain path to compete for the future service mix that includes higher broadband availability and a mix of media/TV services from the 'seat to the street'.
What is 'the result' of the trials that you expect/want to be known soon? Although a certain amount has been determined about the trial from mentions by the company and reports/blogs here and there that have disclosed some of the details, such as descriptions of the units used in the trials, there is not a lot known about how the network and user devices work or how the mesh up between home broadband, satellite TV, and mobile networks are fashioned. The trail has been loosely described as fixed broadband-TV. However, that describes very little and does not indicate how the home network service would integrate into mobile service. That could be as meek/castrated of an attempt as Sprint simply helping DISH out with deployments that make use of Sprint's backhaul and base station assets or a stepping-stone more fully integrated approach that, even though it starts as home broadband-TV service, would be positioned to expand as part of an integrated fixed-to-mobile service with multiple-screen device and home/RoofTop to broad network integration.
What's also not known is how the various spectrum help by DISH and Sprint would be coordinated. Tim talks about using AWS as backhaul. That is a fair speculation because there is a fair amount of it that is open to be put to new use. However, backhaul is becoming a more fungible asset.. with the spectrum to be used as it is available and more cost effective but shifted as lower bands fill up or can be put to more effective use than the cludgy higher frequency bands. The 2.5-6 GHz spectrum and higher frequency bands are the more suitable for backhaul while using AWS 'middle band' spectrum for broadband/TV service.
Because so little is known and Sprint has flubbed so badly in the past to make use of 2.6 GHz, there is a lot in the question 'What is the result' of the DISH-Sprint network trial. What is the immediate and plan for evolution of the network and coincident business relationship? If and how would it go national?
"The company holds a worldwide portfolio of 236 patents, including 25 granted in 2013." This shows your lack of understanding and why you should not be investing in tech stocks/industries you know so little about. 236 patents? Many companies that hold ten times that amount do not have the stock valuation of PRKR. Many companies that produce RF, antennas, power amps, assemblies, etc. have more patents and have long track records of selling products or licenses to that technology because they have proven valid in the marketplace of products and IPR. Parkervision has tried to become a 'patent mill' without any success: they have had no product or licensing revenue, nadda. They have patents that are threatened to be greatly trimmed or ruled invalid altogether. Despite ~15 years of claims by chief snake oil peddler, Jeffrey Parker, the company has no commitments from anyone that will generate revenue. All promises have gone bust.
Its a wonder that you post about patents as if these are particularly hard to accomplish and result in monetary gains. More often than not, patents never result in revenue from product sales or licensing. The statistics on patents should be understood by investors who tout them as meaningful to the value of companies. I could give you a long explanation of the statistics and how this works outside of never-neverland of Parkervision Fairy Dust patent claims. But you need to do that work for yourself so you can be an informed idiot instead of just a meaningless one.
Nevertheless, so much focus on TMUS troubles is because Sprint is behind the eight ball in gaining momentum on rivals who, like T-Mobile are taking share and have the upper hand in network and subscriber momentum. This trouble is a dieline issue that will not change TMUS's path in building networks or gaining share. Sprint has to muscle up where they need it to change their competitive position... five such legal woes would not put Sprint out ahead even if they would be giving Legere headaches.
PRKR from high near 50 to 1.50, PRKR has been a short sellers dream tech Ponzi Scheme stock to sell. It will go to zero within 2 years, probably within 18 months. You can bash those who sold at a higher price, either previous longs or short sellers, however, that is an idle, moronic rant. PRKR may well move above this level as it tries to recover its legal battle and hold onto core patents. That has become statistically a very 'long shot' proposition.
"Wah, wah, wah, I want to be the good guy who only believes in the stories companies pitch to sell me on investing hard cash into stock symbols.. that lines their pockets. Then once in, I want other fools to follow me.. while I lie about the odds. 'Odds are great PRKR will move up sometime between now and the funeral'.
How does KSR v. Teleflex apply to Parkervision. Probably from a few different angles.. which aren't all that interesting to take the time to delve into, however, a direct implication is that while PV's patents apply to only a receiver function of RF, to convert input signals previously matched in impedance, power levels/envelope, frequency... so the basic conversion to baseband can occur, PV's focus in the patents has been broadened to the point that it clashes with other bounds of technology segments. What this means is PV's tech could never work as broadly interpreted. Mr. Sterne will likely be held to account for how PV's claims are written such that they are already seen to have overlapped prior art and from an extrapolation of what has transpired in court proceedings, can be expected to be construed to overlap on other circuits and methodologies, even those that have digital corollaries.
This also touches on issues waged in court outside of patents themselves: because the breath of claims is broad enough to concoct new theories of operation such as the second baseband signal theory while failing to mention ill intended impacts or how it may be implemented, such as frequency-phase shift, cross-coupling of first and second signals, etc. the claims will be trimmed or invalidated... of maybe Mr. Sterne can convince the IPR review to just ignore that implication and others because he participated in KSR v. Teleflex?
This is nonsense: T-Mobile is not in trouble.. that is sensational crock. This makes headlines because you conks watch advertisements that pay money and then feed you this bunck of hype to keep your eyeballs glued to the payola.
Gloob-goob-gajoob.. is Sprint so boring that you have to make up stuff to distract you?
When the acquisition first hit the spotlight, many thought a deal would move forward quickly.. a deal on the table post haste, regulatory approvals hardly mentioned... be honest - it was all a bunch of novices hyping what they don't understand to make a buck in their stock.
My suggestion that the deal would take time and would meet with resistance from regulators was abruptly shot down, some posts suggesting I was 'bashing' Sprint. However, time marches on: during the past several months new M&A's among cable, mobile+satellite (AT&T+DTV), and speculation about Verizon and DISH have come to present a situation in which Sprint+T-Mobile does not stand out so much as an improbability for being approved by regulators. T-Mobile has gained marketshare, Sprint has floundered... while both companies have talked up the need to merge in order to present viable competition in the face of a mobile convergence with broadband and TV that Verizon and AT&T are preparing to unleash.
My earlier prediction that an acquisition offer wouldn't be likely to become official until late this or early next year, thus, needed to be adjusted due to the changed circumstances... I now think it is possible for the official offer to come within weeks instead of several months. My guess is that it will not come until August or later.. and its still possible that it won't come until next year. There remains a lot that is not known well enough to call the timing with any precision - how the FCC and DOJ may be swaying in favor or approval and how the context of other deals and looming mobile media empire building might weight regulatory approval.. while possible to gather in pieces of info, its not like being in the middle of it. Lots of moving parts.
This is similar to legal hassles of Sprint in NYC... it will wash out in the overall picture with no material impact likely.
What is investing or trading in stocks all about? Its about betting that you know more that will show up in a change from what the market currently values a stock, commodity, derivative (options), or bond. In theory at least, the market takes in all available information and the price adjusts accordingly. Therefore, the only way to take advantage of the market is to have superior knowledge or simply to get at it before others.
If an investor knows anything that will affect the investment before others, they should act on it. If that information is that someone or group is 'manipulating' news, such as that about Sprint-TMUS acquisition, in order to move the stock or options, then what is the obvious thing to do, go against the larger thing that is influencing the investment or go with it? "Duh, I have seen this, that or the other thing for six months and have been telling youse guys about it.. while I have not a) sold call options as the Green Meanies have caused them to move unrealistically high, b) shorted the stock, c) bought the stock at recent lows then sold calls as the G.M.'s caused it to move up again.
If a person has better knowledge than others.. well that is just what winning in the market is all about isn't it? They should use that to get in on the move up, down or sideways (selling covered calls on sideways, range trending stocks). "Naw, I'll just tell people the market is being controlled and not how to do a darn thing to make money with what I say is superior knowledge.. "
Robert G. Sterne was appointed lead counsel for defense of MF-RPX IPR review of Parkervision's core D2D patents. Sterne has experience in leading edge high tech patent review and litigation, including serving as co-counsel on the precedent setting Supreme Court case, KSR v. Teleflex. Sterne's firm represented Teleflex. KSR argued that the combination of a mechanical gas pedal with an electronic control, both design elements that are well known i the prior art, were non-patentable due to obviousness to someone versed in the art. The circuit court of appeals reversed the district court decision in favor of KSR on obviousness. The Supreme Court then unanimously reversed the district court. The case is among recent cases that impact the issue of patent claims interpretation and validity. The KSR v Teleflex case says that the appellate court had viewed the obviousness determination from too narrow a perspective. Patents claims must be viewed more broadly when considering obviousness "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," .
Despite being on the losing side, participation in the precedent setting case is a highlight of Mr. Sterne's career, adding to experience useful in representing Parkervision in defense of their core D2D patents.
However, a host of lawyers with similar credentials as Mr. Sterne will not be enough to overcome basic problems of PV's patents. The obviousness issue might come up but I doubt it will central to the IPR: the PV patents are obfuscating of any means while stepping directly on prior art. Rather than contribute a new invention either by combining prior design elements or a new invention, PV's alleged technology provides obscure use of terms, formulas, descriptions and claims. Furthermore, Parkervision 'won' an overly broad Markman interpretation of claims which opens a pandora's box mapping to prior art... Fairy Dust broad.
Good post but can the attack on detractors - every stock/company needs valid criticism.
Sprint-Softbank's ability to borrow is not the major hurdle or timing issue.
You are right about Sprint, T-Mobile and DISH needing a way to counter VZW and ATT's triple/quadruple play mobile-media-broadband services.
PRKR chart technical analysis looks like the odds for a bounce are ~80% off this level for a 10%-25% move up. Call it what you may, a 'dead cat bounce'... the long term picture remains bearish imo. However, the final outcome of the legal and procedural battles of Parkervisiion's patents will likely go on for several months, leaving room for volitity, including a move up from this near all-time low level imo.
The trend is sideways within a channel as it has been for the past few months... therefore, no trend reversal.. just finding support for a upward move within the sideways trend channel.
Transfer of energy was not shown. It is one thing for an expert witness to make such a statement, another to show it is actually the case either by confirming measurements or theory of circuit operation that holds up. Neither Prucnal nor F.D. Sorrells did either. That makes their blathering a thing that Judge Dalton pointed out rather bluntly in his decision. Get over it fools.
The patents were granted by the USPTO, thus valid until proven otherwise. Parkervision got their first patents granted and saw that as an opportunity to build a patent thicket of supporting patents similar to strategies used by Qualcomm and other firms that had tested their core patents in US and international courts.
Many times paper theory put down in technical papers or patents 'seems to make sense' when it actually does not. This may be because patent attorneys and some engineers work within a 'ivory tower' environment unexposed to actual circuits, measurements of circuits, and how the designs (inventions) are built into practical semiconductor devices, circuits and commercially competitive products. For instance, the route many USPTO patent examiners take is combing right from earning a law degree into the Patent Office. Many serve in that capacity for 4-10 years and then go to work as patent lawyers where they can earn more and use their experience to help clients get patent grants. If they go to work for firms that build successful commercial products, the ideas/inventions will likely be put under the scrutiny of those who have practical experience of what works and what does not. They may also become exposed to more in-depth circuit theory and the rigor of the peer review and standards review process which trims away vague concepts of operation similar to those found in Parkervision's patents.
'Parkervision tried to rehabilitate their opposition to Qualcomm's JMOL in session with Judge Dalton, claiming that although the carrier wave was generated prior to storage in the TX capacitor, that this was some second signal.' .. although the baseband signal which was generated/recovered from the carrier wave prior to the TX capacitor,...
J. Dalton has issued the court's ruling which makes this repeated discussion irrelevant until and unless Parkervision is granted a new trial.
Doc 518, p. 10:
"The asserted claims require the transfer of energy from a carrier signal to a storage
device, e.g., a capacitor (the “energy transfer” limitation), and the use of that transferred energy
to generate a lower frequency or baseband signal (the “generating” limitation). See, e.g., ’551
Patent at claim 23, 85:48-58; Trial Tr. 10/8 at 87:6-88:5. By controlling a switching device,
“non-negligible amounts” of energy (or samples) from the carrier signal are transferred into a
capacitor. See, e.g., ’551 Patent at 98:4-27; Trial Tr. 10/8 at 83:3-18. Although the carrier signal
itself is not present after the switching device, its energy is transferred to the capacitor after
being sampled by the switching device. See Trial Tr. 10/10 at 217:21-218:3.
The last sentence is a tickler. By this warped logic, a person is guilty of bank robbery if a bank robber uses stolen money to buy a car (a baseband signal previously generated at the output of the mixer) and then travels to another state (another part of the circuit) and sells the car to receive clean money (signal number 2). Parkervision tried to rehabilitate their opposition to Qualcomm's JMOL in session with Judge Dalton, claiming that although the carrier wave was generated prior to storage in the TX capacitor, that this was some second signal. Its equivalent to the bank robber claiming he was no longer guilty of theft because he transited from one state to another and handed off the car that conveyed the stolen money onto a hapless buyer. His 'clean money' was free of claim it was stolen because it was, in his (FD Sorrells') mind, a 'second signal', perhaps at a lower frequency harmonic (less money than he had bought the car) as an explanation to why it was different.
J. Dalton saw through this gobbledygook and ruled accordingly.