The technical analysis points to Sprint (S) trading in a range between about 5.45 (1st strong resistance level) and 4.20 (1st strong support level). MACD, ADX, and full stochastics indicators look bearish while the accumulate/distribution indicator remains bullish. The chart pattern looks like a choppy 'cup and handle formation' with higher highs and higher lows that also forms an ascending triangle/pendant formation - which are bullish chart formation patterns.
The sum of these indicators and chart formation patterns is short term moderately bearish, mid term modestly bullish. It might be characterized as showing that prior months long selling pressure has been relieved but a catalyst to determine a higher or lower move is needed before S strikes out of the recent sideways trend bound by the resistance and support levels. This can be conjectured to correspond to recent events: short interest has declined indicating some cashing in on long term short/bearish bias while some indication that Sprint's downward spiral in subscriber and bottom line losses may be ending as network improvements culminate in better customer service and localized retail focus has a beneficial impact.
Summation: Sprint technically looks to be finding at least temporarily more solid grounding in networks that results in stabilization of sales trends if not the substantial upward swing needed to assure the company's future. This is 'reading into the charts' that is highly subjective. If S results continue to disappoint, the stock will almost certainly head lower. On the other hand, there appears to some 'winding of the spring' that may uncoil if some, even modest, good news is afoot. "Good news" can't be poppycock creations of the marketing department.. results seen in sub and revenue growth or creative plans for deployments (yea right), are needed as a catalyst before Sprint moves solidly higher imo.
Odds for overturn of Judge Dalton/District Court decision - 17% (source: CAFC report and multiple blogs that have compiled the data into reports/graphics).
Odds for at least one claim being determined invalid by PTAB IPR: 92%. (source: PTAB reported statistics and multiple blog sites that have compiled the data).
If any claim is declared invalid, the District Court jury verdict on infringement is thrown out regardless of the merits of the remaining claims. Parkervision could then pursue a retrial based on a new court determined claims construction. If all the petitioned claims are invalidated, despite what J.P. says, the legal campaign waged by PRKR is effectively dead forever.
The combined odds for PV success through PTAB IPR and CAFC appeal based on the reported statistics (without consideration of the merits of the PRKR vs. QCOM case) are 1.38%.
Claure is likely to be questioned about the deal with Google. Its uncertain if Sprint will discuss that during the call. Thus far all companies involved have been mum about the deal, choosing to filter information primarily through the Wall Street Journal. I suspect that is being orchestrated and that Sprint will not be in a position to dicsuss details during the call. However, this deal presents a new opportunity to shift the focus away from less attractive areas of discussion and more towards what can be done in the future... the lack of details can be replaced with broad picture painting.
Its always good to have a path forward. The more that changes up the situation a company is stuck in, often the better that works out for the stock price. Before reality came to roost, for example, Network Vision/Spark gave investors something to look forward to that promised to turn around the decline in subscribers and revenue and lead to profits due to higher efficiencies. Sprint has gone down, deservedly so imo, since. Now there is a chance that the Google deal can be one of the anchors for a new vision to emerge .. a new 'blue sky' scenario to rally around. While it will be quite awhile to see if whatever that emerging vision fleshes out to become delivers meaningful competitive results, the fact is that markets love 'blue sky above'... the tide in investor sentiment may be more inclined to turn up in anticipation of whatever comes into the offing. I hope its not so full of hype it makes me sick of Sprintsy wintsy... we shall have to see.
The S4GRU site shows some details of Sprint's plans for bolstering and expanding coverage of networks, particularly filling in gaps in LTE 2.6GHz coverage. It mentions that funding for full deployments is not fully lined up and might come over the next 2 quarters. This plan shows that Sprint is working on improving coverage, capacity and filling in gaps and in-building penetration for 2.6GHz coverage. That should help Sprint continue to improve network performance, coverage and reliability.
Sprint uses Samsung, Nokia/NSN and ALU (Alcatel-Lucent). The new/modified line up of suppliers is an improvement imo, notably the addition of NSN. Take a look at Nokia's Flexi Multiradio 10 Base Station. This is a refinement of Nokia's historical SDR, software defined radio, modular multiple-radio platform that shows a basic change that has taken place in base station designs. Old 1G-3G base stations required large trailer-sized equipment sheds in which power supplies, equipment racks air conditioning equipment etc. were located at the base of the tower. NSN and similar 2G-4G BS are air-cooled and can mount near the tower antenna or on a roof, exterior wall water tower, signage, and similar locations. Network router, etc. may be housed in cabinets. An alternative SOftbank has used extensively in Japan is centralized B. station servers connected via fiber optic to RF headends located at the site of the antennas.
Sprint is making progress. That has to translate to higher customer satisfaction and growth at a competitive cost. A surprise to the upside might only require a continued show of improvements that creates some momentum in subscriber growth matched to lower costs.
Search for " Analysts: T-Mobile, AT&T likely to hold onto more customers in Q1 than Sprint, Verizon "
This article points out a pessimistic view of Jefferies" "As Sprint, the Jefferies analysts are forecasting the company to lose 355,000 handset subscribers in the first quarter "as the initial shock of last quarter's promotions wears off." Since Sprint introduced the aggressive "Cut Your Bill in Half!" offer in December targeting Verizon and AT&T, the analysts noted, both Verizon and T-Mobile have introduced competing offers. Verizon now offers two lines and 6 GB of data for $100, while T-Mobile offers two lines and unlimited data for the same amount."
I have been expecting Sprint to come in with some gains in core subscribers due to the more aggressive pricing. Until recently, I expected T-Mobile's sales momentum would slow because it has been running discounts for several quarters that more recently have been countered by Sprint and other competitors. However, recent bold moves to sacrifice profits for further subscriber gains should reinvigorate TM's momentum. The company is likely to continue on tract with past quarters.
If so, then T-Mobile will pull ahead of Sprint in core subscribers by about 2 million by the end of this quarter. And sales numbers will come close to being equal. Considering momentum, I expect T-mobile to take the number 3 place while Sprint moves from a share for 3rd to 4th place. If trends continue, TM will have 3-5 million more core subs than Sprint by the end of the year.
Investors might bet on a change in trends that would cause an upward change in trend for the stock as well. Its best to time that based on results or early indications of results rather than wishful thinking. Sprint touted a turn around last quarter that looked like more marketing make believe. If Jefferies forecasts pan out to see S losing 335K while TM gains 1.1 mil postpaid, S's turnaround will still be over the horizon.
Qualcomm's strategy is to defend itself against non-operating Patent Trolls like Parkervision. They have not engaged in the type of tactics in which they have tried to bury Parkervision under the weight of motions and disclosure. I fought a lawsuit as a manufacturer's rep in which my contract had been violated for the tune of a few million dollars. The company hired among the world's best law firms and spent an estimated $750,000 to drive me, for all practical purposes, bankrupt and forced to settle in arbitration. I 'won' the arbitration with a fraction of what I was entitled under the contract. The company 'lost' having paid their lawyers what I might have agreed to settle for prior to litigation. The little guy does often get screwed by our corrupt legal system. I understood that going in but figured that the company would have at least offered a million to settle it out of court.. they also had the cost of the hassle to management and internal resources.
There may be some at PV who think they are on a crusade to right wrongs. I do not see it that way because the patents are not valid. If PV has valid technology it was misconstrued in the claims to be overly broad. That renders the core patents invalid by prior art. Other flaws are failure to clearly teach the invention, which can rule them invalid by itself.
Q has waged a clean battle, not an onerous one similar to what I faced... motion after motion that burdened my case to enforce a contract. I have limited sympathy for the 'little guy' who I figure is in the wrong.. even if QCOM had waged a way more burdensome legal defense.
You post is a futile attempt to get into another of your circular tit-for-tat circular postings. I have posted my opinions on the patents, which had drawn my interest in Parkervision in the first place, starting about 14 years ago. It serves no purpose whatsoever to explain why the patents are invalid and can not be made to work because you will listen no more now as you and other devoted worshipers have over the years. You will go on sticking to Parker's story about how your fairy dust technology works regardless of what I or anyone else has to say about it. Good luck in helping new suckers empty their pockets into the hands of JP and company.
Everyone have a good weekend.. sprint is almost in the air... get out and enjoy it.
For a retailer or company with major brand recognition, becoming an MVNO is normally not a big deal. MVNOs make up about 20% of mobile marketshare. A large part of that is held by captive MVNO operations held by the major operators. Virgin Mobile, for example, was acquired by Sprint.
Amazon's or Google's entry into the MVNO starts out as mostly a big yawn - so what.. many others that have tried to make a splash as MVNO's found the going is tough. Unless the MVNO is doing something unique, they are just a generic, low priced rung on the ladder.
The reason why Amazon or Google are interested in this is to protect their prime businesses and use the MVNO platform to try new things such as more tightly integrated TV box/entertainment centers and mobile devices. This can be part of turf building IF it can capture significant marketshare. However, the odds are against Google and Amazon.
What could change: As mentioned, Google has indicated a different approach - using two, Sprint and T-Mobile, or more mobile network facilities operators to deliver better connections at lower prices. That is speculative as no detailed plans have been announced. Google says they want to experiment with better integration of devices, seamless operation, etc. In the past, Google has said it wanted to push "WiFi First" connectivity. And they have said they want to push into 802.11ax longer range WiFi and white spaces which could cover over a couple miles in range. Google has said a lot of things.. most that end up being a fraction of a percent of the market if anything. White Farces, er. Spaces has zero percent US marketshare years after being 'proven' by Googley. W.S. technology is cool.. the commercial execution is what sucks bad.
Maybe Sprint+Google can = commercial success
Sprint has excess 2.6GHz spectrum, is losing money, and needs ways to expand networks at lower cost. Google has scant fiber optic, W.S., and Android. Lots of ?marks. Past says Sprtinsy can't do it.
A look at the five and ten and maximum year charts shows a lot about zombie stock PRKR:
Parkervision has seen peak 'value' when the company has embarked on new 'gambit' from selling products to pursuing chips (yea really... despite never having sales), to pursuing litigation to force firms to license its technology (sic).
The five year chart shows PRKR was at 42c and rose to over 5, a whopping 10x during the height of the latest scam, er company redirection towards litigation against Qualcomm. The stock has since dropped under 1 as court and PTAB rulings have taken their toll on misinformation promulgated by Parkervision and willing accomplices on web stock promotion boards.
Longer term charts reveal a history of sharp rises and collapses as Parker shifted the company following the collapse of the prior gambit. PRKR once reached over 50 only to fall after no product sales developed and no patent licenses or paying development agreements were signed.
This latest gambit is the last: PRKR has depended on the overall story of having developed unique, transferable technology that delivers a leap forward in communications. The reality is that nobody uses the technology as it delivers no benefits. That is shown in the inability of Parkervision to sell any products that include D2D or D2P alleged inventions.
The US PTO PTAB preliminary ruling and upset in the district court case against Qualcomm result in Parkervision having run out of options. Capital is drying up. The recent deal for $7 mil is a last ditch effort that sells potential litigation gains, stock options and debt repayment for money that will be burnt in a vain attempt at resuscitating and already dead patient. What are the odds? Zero imo.. give them your own assessment.. the odds of reversing the legal outcome is daunting. PRKR still has no sales prospects, no licensing prospects, and no prospect for reviving the court defeat and it faces being gutted of core patent claims.
Kansas City Business Journal
Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn
A merger between Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile US Inc. may have fizzled months ago.
But top brass at the companies are still hoping regulators may someday warm up to the idea of the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. carriers combining.
Tim Hoettges, CEO of T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom AG, said that the two would have created a compelling team, offering scale to compete with industry leaders, according to a re/code report.
Sprint's Claure reviews failed T-Mobile merger, what's next
Flying Solo: Sprint's future hinges on finding fresh message
Sprint/T-Mobile merger in KC: 7 answers to one big question
"I was intrigued by the idea of having a combination with Sprint and being the super-maverick in the market," Hoettges said in the report. "I hope that the political environment will change at one point in time."
T-Mobile (NYSE: TMUS) and Sprint (NYSE: S) tried for months to sway regulators that a merger would benefit the marketplace through a more competitive No. 3 carrier. Sprint parent SoftBank Corp. joined its U.S. company in a PR campaign to persuade regulators, with CEO Masayoshi Son leading the way. Each party involved, however, only hinted at the merger, for which there was never a formal bid placed.
Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure confirmed the merger attempt in September, only about a month after becoming Sprint's new top executive.
"We wanted to do the acquisition that I call the most publicized, never announced transaction," Claure said previously. "We tried our best. Masa (Son) was determined, but it got to a point where the government said 'it ain't going to happen.' .... "We're believers in consolidation. This is a scale game. When your competitors are twice the size and it costs you the same to run the network, scale does matter. However, you can't complain anymore about that. ... You have to compete with what you have."
Let's help Jeffrey Snake-oil Parker out:
New Ideas for Company Direction:
---Sell stock on KickStarter for BitCoins - advantage is that this these are in vogue now... new suckers to reel in.
---Target patents at 'business concepts' area which is easier to show novel approach: For example, a patent on the method of developing patents: Claim 1 "A method of filing for patents that clouds examination in a sea of irrelevant references, named D2C, direct to confusion. Claim 2. A D2C method as in claim 1 that further leaves out references to common practice of patent system manipulation. Claim 3: A further method as in claim 2 that uses vague terms in multiple contexts so as to broaden the possible scope of the patent(s) to embrace 'everything under the sun'. Claim 4: A further method as in claim 3 which comprises creating a story to sell to juries. The method includes early sales meetings that offers bold promises for business results using D2C technology. Ingredients include keeping details of the workings of the method of the invention under cloak and dagger secrecy and creating a myth of the benefits of D2C that cannot be confirmed or denied due to lack of proof points.
Parkervsion may yet rise up as the master of business method patents of what they have developed. They have conclusive proof that D2C works.. it has allowed PRKR to secure many millions in funding already. The new course for the company should allow sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of additional stock. Money is, after all, the ultimate proof of a new business process patent company.
Sprint is a brand name but that is not something that props up inferior overall service for long. Markets flee to other suppliers, other countries in free markets. Sprint's customers have fled which is the basic reason Sprint is down. Subscribers and measures of profitability determine long term success for all free enterprises.
You confirm your lack of understanding with every post.
Qualcomm had pioneered commercial use of CDMA/WCDMA technologies... their patent portfolio was built upon key patents that solved problems of adoption of CDMA for wide area cellular network and handset applications. This approach had to overcome TDMA and other wireless. With about the same amount of capital as gifted to Parkerscamavision, Q developed chipsets, base stations, and worked with handset suppliers and test instrument companies to prove that their technology was superior to prior tech. It was hard to convince equipment and phone suppliers, and operators, but the technology gained support, including by 3GPP, because Q went the full way to prove its benefits. PRKR, on the other hand, never got off the ground with a single chip, device, or equipment or with CAD or emulation in software that showed the tech to work. The differences between what has become the most successful wireless device technology company and PRKR are day and night.. success and failure.
Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE among them, participated in development of OFDM based 4G LTE and B4G tech and have among the world's most extensive patent portfolios. The Chinese ministry of technology pushed 3G & 4G+ technology development.
China set a goal, about 15 years ago, of becoming a world power in wireless communications. They have accomplished that.
That has made it a matter of time, IPR, intellectual property rights, and economics before there would be a clash between major companies of the West and Chinese government and companies. That 'battle' is typically fought over patents and international trade rules/anti-monopoly issues. . I, among others, had seen this coming many years ago and recent 'news' comes as no surprise.. except to noob idiots like those found here.
You are so full of it... the one surviving patent has to have all other patent claims survive or the prior trial will become void. Patnet trials have to be re-tried if claims are thrown out. If Parkervisions prior patents/claims are invalidated, the body of work is weakened accordingly. The assertion that Qualcomm has infringed was based on a theory of operation of PRKR's other patents. This '342 patent does not substantiate that theory; if the DC ruling were to be reversed by CAFC, but some claims in the adjudicated IPRs are found invalid, as is very likely, the case would have to be retried. A new MARKMAN hearing would determine the construction of the sustained claims and a new theory of infringement would have to be alleged.
Good luck with your cheerleading peanut gallery. This does not change the odds. The '342 patent is among the most constrained. Read the claims - there is no proof that Q's circuits operate in the manner described. This patent is narrow, which has the beneficial feature of not having been drafted to cover everything under the sun similar to PV's patents covered by much prior art. However, being more precise relegates the patent to a narrow set of applications, for which there is no proof Q infringes.
The market perception is that S is worth 4.92. The perception of value locked up in unused spectrum may be growing over time... however, Sprint has to avert running onto financial rocks through better operating networks and efficiency redeem that value... or, after all these years, a competitor must come up with cash to buy some of it. It may be valuable if someone uses it to make money or wants to buy it. Otherwise, its like raw land in the Wyoming prairie.. looks good to visit but few live there.
They are ""outrageously false or stupid" technical claims made by the Patent Owner".. saying that the patent claims violate the basic laws of signaling/physics says that in a most definitive way but a way, but a way that few investors could understand until finally condemned within the legal system. A lot of 'red herrings' have stood out over the years that should have made this abundantly clear: no sales, no validation in peer review, confused meaning of terms and theories of operation exposed in Parkervision claims for the technology, patents and documents prior to trial and then during the trial and JMOL motions. And more obfuscation of facts made in McKool's soon to be proven vain attempt to rehabilitate the case on appeal to CAFC.
I suppose even after PTAB invalidates at least some of the claims and CAFC affirms Judge Dalton's decision to override the jury, there will be loonies who create a new theory of Parkervision's business to correspond to the "outrageously false or stupid" technical and business claims made by Mr. Jeffrey Snakeoil Parker and F.D. (aka Mr. Fairy Dust) Sorrells. This is because the looney tunes USA environment has been corrupted by mad money reminiscent of the shim-sham era of the 20's... evolved to the high tech stock circus arena.
Step right up.. JP's miracle RF elixir, cures all that ails you, including "fat wallet buttoch ailment"
Switching between Sprint and T-Mobile networks was what I figured as part of it. What could also happen is bonding or channels from both carriers at the same time. For example to provide higher bandwidth for video services. Individual carriers have been migrating to LTE-Advanced networks with multiple-carrier aggregation capabilities and the latest devices using Qualcomm or Mediatek chips can do channel aggregation.
Google would be unique which could certainly be an additional selling point of the service.
The article says they could start offering it by the middle of this year.. earlier than I thought likely. Its possible that this generates more interest in the stock that goes beyond the low early impact on sales and negligible likely impact on earnings. Google may also pay a large enough amount up front to have a positive financial impact, although if so it would need to be accounted for over the quarters of use. As reports of details filter out, this is shaping up positively thus far.
Sprint has needed to have a bigger plan to shoot for.. this deal isn't an overall company direction but its big and different enough to set a new tone for the direction that can shape up. I think it will likely influence the stock to move higher even though its primarily 'just an MVNO deal'.
You could very well be right. Marcelo is a retail/wholesale guy who sold similar commodities but in a much different situation. He could be pushing to achieve equality with the larger competitors through what is is most familiar - establishing a larger retail presence while what needs fixing most is coverage and bandwidth-to-coverage and quality of the mobile operation. This deal could work out to provide Sprint with a retail presence that is partly afforded through Radio Shack's traditional business. Or it could add to the losses, which Sprint can il afford. Investors are along for the ride as few details were disclosed.
Sprint is partly trying to present themselves as "New Sprint" . Like new Coke or something. If people don't like the taste of what's in the bottle, they won't buy it.
This board continues to recycle the same issues. Longs have to keep it up in order for there to be hope of a higher stock price. Then fact diggers such as fudfighter feel compelled to respond by laying out the facts again and again. Otherwise, suckers new to PRKR might be duped into betting wildly against the real odds.
Behind this are the lawyers who get paid basic fees, stock options, etc. that are envious... even on 'contingency' the legal costs run pretty high. So they are often pro-litigation regardless of the odds. PV management have nothing to lose. They collect checks and options win, lose or draw. As others pointed out, PV rewards options without the requirement to turn in revenue or other meaningful results.
So, the beat will go on.. posters will post, lovers will love, haters will hate.. and a few more suckers will empty their pockets... while the courts and PTO PTAB wind through the legal morass.
There is no fix of Sprint's networks that would have Sprint pull up in competitive ranks in their national network. Claure can continue to pursue what he has said is his aim: focus on network improvement in fewer locations, otherwise cut costs, and offer the market lower prices/higher price value to lure more subscribers. RootMetrics scores should improve under that sustained scenario, but just that... incrementally over time. Claure does not have the $12-$20 billion added funds to build out 2.6GHz into a full nationwide footprint that delivers the benefits of tri-band that would place Sprint on a more equal/competitive bandwidth-coverage distribution. It has not happened, cannot happen without that debt riddled expenditure which is not feasible under the current scenario.. even with Google's help as an MVNO.
How could that change? There is no quick and easy solution. There are speculative options such as a major thrust by Google to exploit WhiteSpaces spectrum in combination with S's LTE band 41. Since Whitespaces is a free spectrum that only requires registration under FCC oversight to use, it potentially is a way to deliver a lower cost service. However, the problems with the spectrum make it difficult and add back in other costs, offsetting the savings in spectrum. How feasible it is depends on the scale.. a catch 22 situation.