Your statements are lies on top of more lies. Your failure to understand electronics in this case is baffling.
The details of what circuits the case applies to is irrelevant because there is lack of evidence for infringement whether current mode or voltage mode is used by Qualcomm.
"5. My question is - if that is correct, why wasn't that distinction brought up and discussed by either Q or P in their Briefs? I don't recall any such discussion. Why is it being brought up for the fist time on oral argument on appeal?"
This may be because the judge's own electronic experts explained the case to them in this way. Q's brief includes explanation that only some of their circuits are current mode and that only limited number of the accused circuits had been studied in detail by PV. So, it is not being brought up for the first time. The judge may be extending that to attack PV's overall case conduct.. in other words, to say to Parker that if they are willing to cast infringement so broadly on all of Q's circuits then that is fair game to be questioned. Dunner was il prepared to answer questions which, even if the judge threw the question out overly broadly, was fitting. PV has cast their net overly broadly, saying that unexamined circuits, including both voltage and current mode devices, infringe. Seems like the judge threw that back at Dunner "Here, you guys caught the fish in the same net, explain how porpoises and tuna are the same thing".
Further to "The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the (JMOL) motion is directed, but whether there is evidence upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for that party.".. in patent cases involving circuits that are typically modeled and provided as test articles, precedent is that the evidence required for a jury to make a proper determination must be one or more of a) a simulation of the accused infringing circuit or algorithmic process, b) a representative circuit that examples the claimed invention that both sides and the court can examine and hold up as proof for or against infringement, c) convincing, incontrovertible evidence such as design documents that clearly show the patented method(s).
Truble4parker can concoct any number of new theories or explanations that might have been argued during the trial. Without the required evidence they are irrelevant. Furthermore, the court will not entertain new arguments. According to the oral arguments, they have narrowed the focus, as expected, to the theory argued by PRKR during the trial and the lack of evidence of such. All new issues or sub-issues brought up by truble4parker should be dismissed simply by saying "not the theory used in the case or not an issue in the appeal" Trub can cry and moan until PRKR is delisted and goes bankrupt, which it will.. it no longer matters. Remaining short sellers can now ignore the proceedings confident that they can either cash out for a few pennies to gain time-value for use of their funds elsewhere or just wait for zero.
In the same article another piece of information of interest to investors with open minds: "In other Sprint Corp news, SVP Charles R. Wunsch sold 121,411 shares of Sprint Corp stock on the open market in a transaction dated Thursday, May 7th. The stock was sold at an average price of $4.72, for a total value of $573,059.92. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission"
"Rah, rah, zis boom bah.... tell half the story, tell half the story... and push the stock higher, higher (so I can sell for a profit to some lesser fool)"
Trublewithreality is sick.
Why does he think he can shift to more preposterous explanations of how PV might pull a rabbit out of its magic hat as each past one has been shut down? It is because the basic understanding of the legal and technical issues are beyond the understanding of most public investors. Even many so called 'RF experts' or patent experts lack the level of understanding needed to have seen through PRKR's ruse. However, the confirmation that CAFC will focus on 1) Empirical evidence that QCOM infringes and 2) Will not allow in unsupported new theories of circuit operation. 3) Further, CAFC judges show support for Qualcomm's explanation of how their circuit works... as a mixer. Although no ruling has been made, it was made clear that Parkervision's case has narrowed to proving through empirical evidence, (which PV' had never come up with), that energy is transferred by a clear method to produce a single copy of the baseband signal.
PV did not present a theory that baseband is produced by some process that involves both the mixer energy supposedly integrated to produce baseband in the TX capacitor. If that were occurring/possible, the DC and CAFC judges wanted to know why has PRKR/McKoolaide never offered it into evidence?
Here is what would happen if the DC and CAFC were to have gone along with Parker's Fairy Dust theories (theories that they can sprinkle onto any circuit they deem to infringe without showing proof it is other than imaginary): PV would have been given carte blanche license to go after any RF circuit without showing proof their method (which I think simply cannot work/violates laws of signaling). This would be unprecedented imo.
Why hasn't the industry media continued to mention this case? Because it has been considered so far out in left field it is only a matter of time before it disappears from the radar. Only dweeb stock boards, and financial blogs bother to discuss it. Its only interest in 'how the system works'.
"The 'revolution' in wireless has occurred in signal processing, not RF: methods that produce 10X-1,000X increase in capacity here in this plane of reality." I do not mean to belittle the role of RF: the benefits of even slight improvement in SNR can be echoed up the chain into ability to use higher order modulation schemes, increased reliability/fewer call drops and user pleasing video transmissions for example. However, all across the field what we can see is that refinements of RF methods conceived up to decades past have taken place.. rather than Fairy Dust revolutions. The 'magic', or so it may seem, that has been taking place has been in how many and how signals are being processes.
Around the time I first read Parkervision's patent applications the industry was trying to figure out what would go into 4G. I talked to among the world's leading RF and signaling engineers at Motorola, Ericsson. Many thought that OFDMA
was far too 'compute intensive' to be done in commercial devices (today's SmartPhones) and network equipment. I also thought CoMP/vectored OFDMA/FDMA and carrier aggregation would occur. Some 15 years later it is here. Why that made sense was it was practical as the best mathematically derived/proven methods. PV's method (sic) has been bunkus interuptus all along.
The RF section matches the input signal to the antennas/received signal at a particular frequency and impedance, mixes LO to generate the complex I/Q baseband signal which is filtered for the TX and RX carrier, harmonics and transient signals and noise that occurs at higher frequencies, is digitized and then demodulated depending on the mode of the received signal (CDMA/WCDMA, OFDMA/FDMA). -A simplification of the actual process: multiple signal paths may be received across multiple antenna that comprise MIMO, multiple-input/multiple-output signal processing. The coming generation of wireless, ie. '5G', includes increased use of coordinated multipoint (CoMP) signal transmission and processing methods. Also taking place is multiple-carrier aggregation in which multiple bands/sub-bands of spectrum are used in the same or alternate frequencies. This will include MC aggregation across licensed and unlicensed (WiFi LTE-U bands) as 3.5GHz and 5GHz is used for this purpose.
The core RF functions of load matching, receiving and transmitting signals has become well understood: an issue of refinement of methods such as reducing noise impact in mixers. Every once in a while a 'revolutionary' technology is proposed... and shot down. The 'revolution' in wireless has occurred in signal processing, not RF: methods that produce 10X-1,000X increase in capacity here in this plane of reality.
There are potential for new methods of modulation that would happen at a earlier/lower level of transmission than current methods. One of these is use of fractal transforms that are oversampled at several times the current baseband frequency levels. While limited by shannon-hartley, the encoding level could theoretically become much higher, 10X+ higher. Some think it impossible..it remains theory until progress in low-level signal processing occur, 5-10 years? Or never?
Pick your friends carefully.. your friend is simply wrong as is being proven so repeatedly in the courts.
Lah de dah... the beat goes on.
You are on another plane of existence. You cannot believe what I, MF or the judges are saying because you have been brainwashed and are uneducated. The facts speak for themselves... and the stock price shows most no longer agree with your bombastic surrealism.
Truble4parker.. you lost already... can never admit how this case is heading even when judges are saying the same things we have been... no evidence, no new theory allowed.
Wow! You are more whacko than I could have imagined.
Your explanation does not follow the case. Your statement "This case is about HOW the switches are OPERATED and Qualcomm's own product title says Qualcomm's products ARE OPERATED AT A 25% duty cycle. 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." is from another plantet. What does your dimension look like?
I started to explain why you are wrong.. figured you will never get it as your plane of existence does not obey the same legal, engineering, mathematical, or business laws as this one. We call out planet Earth. What is your plane of existence look like? Do you live on a round sphere that is covered 2/3 by water? Do you breath oxygen? Wow, imagine, encountering another plane of existence in which the rules are so vastly different that it is hard to follow anything more complicated than typing on a keyboard.
Its my opinion you lost money on Sprint (S) and want to blame someone other than yourself. Making stuff up about me or other posters is juvenile... go for it .. it only shows your true colors.
JP is the Teflon Don of the stock world. He will likely just say the same bunko he has in the past about how this was just in the first stages in the case and it doesn't mean much. Or he might try to talk about the second case and say that PV will be better prepared, pointing to the new white paper (which provides no solid evidence such as a simulation or mathematical proof.
Whatever he says, it will likely come across as being warm and friendly .. just what long suckers have come to rely on to soothe the jagged nerves after a failure to deliver sales or court victories. Give Jeffery credit for being an excellent snake oil salesman. Don't count out his ability to do it again... the sucker longs have been easy prey.
"News flash: They get to define that as they please and you heard where they are focused." CAFC is bound by legal precedent which they and the US Supreme Court in conjunction with ITC, International Trade Commission, has established precedent that includes evidentiary and procedural requirements. The precedent for evidence that determined how Judge Dalton ruled on JMOL at the District Court level was set by the higher courts. US patent laws have changed to become closer to conventions used in most of the world.. the IPR process stems for both domestic pressure and from the fact that most countries and regional governmental bodies such as EU have something similar.
CAFC is not simply deciding on what points they wish to focus. They are clearly being guided by the legal precedent for evidence and juries responsibilities to adhere to the requirements. As posted in the past, there are specific types of evidence that are considered qualified. The CAFC judges have looked over the case and see that Parkervision has failed to provide it. That was certain to cause defeat for PV once it got to the appeal stage whether Judge Dalton had ruled in PV's favor on JMOL on infringement or whether Qualcomm had appealed a favorable ruling for PV.
CAFC has only one way they can rule to keep within established precedent... precedent CAFC has helped establish.
QCOM's attorney had an easy job compared to PV:
There is solid legal precedent in patent cases that there must be empirical evidence when that is possible. In the case of electronic circuit method patents that is not just possible but its common practice to provide either or both of direct circuit simulations and evaluation circuits. The other issue is that the plaintiff must present their theory of how the defendant has infringed the claims as interpreted in the Markman. They cannot change the infringement theory after the trial in the JMOL or appeal. That put Teter in position to blast away at Parkervision's case on the lack of evidence and how the case was built to apply very broadly. By saying " “We don’t have to test. We don’t have to simulate. We don’t have to do anything. All the documents say it’s therefore “a low pass filter”, but we can just say “it’s not and that’s good enough.” Qualcomm is inferring a broader issue that the appeals court will consider: they will not wish to set precedent that a very broad interpretation of patent claims can be applied without solid evidence as that would give license for PV and set precedent for others to pursue such broad interpretation while failing to confine the scope with tacit evidence.
I have thought about whether CAFC would set substantial new precedent in PRKR vs QCOM and think that is unlikely: there is existing case law that clarifies what types of evidence are required in patent cases and the role of juries and judges in interpreting the evidentiary requirements. There is precedent, some recently established regarding the need for clear and concise teaching of the patented method(s). And there is multiple precedent regarding how damages are determined. I think it more likely CAFC with rule against Parkervision on appeal, perhaps with a warning message that basts the conduct of the case, but with no substantial precedent being established. It is too flim-flam to deserve it.
There are winners and there are losers. Those who own stock symbol S are losers over the past two years, Those who owned Softbank shares made a gain and some dividends worth about 20% total. Those who were wise or lucky enough to own DISH or T-Mobile should be smiling.
Oh, you can measure noise in a functioning circuit.. however, that only examines the relationship in that specific circuit. It can be said to be representative of all or a subset of circuits, but is not proof of that unless it is supported properly in the proofs of the theory of operation.
In an infringement case, you should be showing a simulation or functioning circuit of the actual accused product(s), not , as in this case, of a a Parkervision design.
This is an academic discussion in regards to PRKR vs. QCOM because PV did not provide a functioning circuit based on Qualcomm's design and has not provided peer-review level documents that support the theory of operation. Again, that is because the D2D theory of operation violates basic laws of communications theory which are based on funcdamental laws of physics. That is the core issue that PV can't overcome.. the technology is bogus, wrong, fake, snake oil... how ever many ways it needs to be said so that the various people reading boards might grok it. What finally is getting fellow idiots to understand this is how the courts understand it. They are not experts in physics or electronics... thus seek codified methods of proof that PV can never provide.
How a circuit functions can be reduced to math derivatives that incorporate noise factor. PV does not produce a set of equations that explain the process. Another method to expose how an RF or signaling method works such that it can be examined, including for signal-to-noise relationships, is to provide circuit emulations for common industry software platforms. Then researchers, prospective customers, or the court might clearly understand how the technology works. Even when it was crucial to the fate of an case involving hundreds of millions of dollars in asserted awards, Parkervision failed to provide this essential proof. That is insanely absurd.