Do you know what the FCC would likely rule about merging of DISH and S spectrum? The acquisition of Sprint by DISH/Ergen while possible might leave the combined company strapped for capital needed to build networks. DISH has spectrum and satellite TV/video but no mobile network or marketshare.
"S+DISH then snatches up TMUS and everyone lives happily ever after." I get it, your entire post was in jest.
Low frequency spectrum that is cleared/not currently used and thus does not face the difficulties of uprooting of current users is the cheapest, easiest and quickest to put to use. Up until the prior tv broadcast auction, (700MHz), the bandwidth below 1GHz was narrowband, often just 5-6MHz. Auction and aggregation of 700Mhz band put wider bandwidth into use, 22-40MHz which made it more feasible to use it for broadband data as well as voice, messaging and MtM applications.
Why would DISH/Ergen need 600MHz when it already has around 80MHz nationally? Because the low band 'beachfront property' can be used similar to Verizon to establish nationwide coverage, starting with relatively few base stations compared to what would be required using mid-band. DISH would start with zero mobile subscribers. The problem is building coverage and then filling up the network with subscribers. The industry is already competitive ... that won't be easy because no matter what DISH were to deploy as a lone operator it would fall short of any of the top four. Deploying into 600MHz is about 1/4 the cost of deploying into 2.5GHz. to achieve the same coverage.
If DISH could start out with a clean sheet of paper to design a spectrum acquisition and network strategy, they would first acquire 20-50MHz of sub 1GHz to add to the initial MSS spectrum that has been used for satellite TV (which the FCC now allows DISH to use for mobile as well), would start deployment into the low band and then, as demand grew to pay for it, acquire mid-band spectrum to build out dense, high bandwidth coverage.
Charlie offered to acquire Clearwire but ran into legal problems: Sprint took him to court for violation of Clearwire corporate governance and agreements that gave special privileges to the founding partners, Sprint, cable companies, and Intel. Ergen was forced to back away. Then, perhaps partly in spite, he put in a bid against Softbank to acquire Sprint. That would have allowed DISH to acquire Clearwire as well. However, this looked like a spoiler action. It forced SB to up their bid to a price that was higher than the stock is now... ouch.
Acquisitions are often good for investors but not so much for the companies if they exhaust their financial strength in the process. What would DISH's acquisition of Sprint look like? Softbank would likely want to a premium over the current valuation, say $25 billion plus assumption of the debts of course. That would greatly reduce DISH's credit standing, raise and limit further borrowing. But DISH would need to spend heavily to build new networks to support "video everywhere".
Wait a minute: DISH/Ergen indicate they will participate in the 600MHz auction. That will take several billion$. That sends the opposite signal: D wants to build instead of acquire.
Garbage in, garbage out: Where has it ever been shown what signals go into and out of the TX capacitor. If you have that evidence you should have offered it to Parkervision's attorneys so that they could have shown that to Judge Dalton and the CAFC panel of judges. As it is in this world, PV has not had such proof.. maybe JP thinks that this web board is where decisions are made and the courts do no matter. .. yea, that must be it.
You know what you wish to know and ignore what you don't.
I posted several weeks ago a list of what qualifies as evidence in patent cases. The requirement for proof is for empirical evidence. Judge Dalton mentioned this in his ruling.. and it matches the reference requirements.
You can keep reiterating Parkervision's stance that Prucnal's opinion was sufficient until you are blue in the face (I bet you look pretty blue around the gills already).
Before PV sued anybody someone familiar with patent cases of this type should have had a core understanding of the level of evidence required. I am not a lawyer but have studied communications patents and several court cases in both the US and overseas courts. Anyone who bothers to study this information will build an understanding of what is required in each type of patent case. I don't know what your background is other than being a believer in lost causes. You should have read some of the case history and procedural precedent so that you would not now be looking like an incompetent fool imo.
Parkervision was required to show proof of the type that can be examined for validity by those who are reasonably knowledgable. Judge Dalton reversed the jury verdict because PV had not provided such proof. CAFC was destined to shoot PV down whenever/however it were to come to them for that reason. They will not accept PV's only argument, that expert testimony without valid proof is required.
FrankenTampa strikes again! Low frequency baseband signal comes out of the mixer. Current flows into the frankentampa brain through the two positive and negative connections on the side of your neck ... its not known what signals might be in there... PV has no evidence of that. What is clear is the current does not work.. FrankenTampen remains braind dead.
You have repeatedly nailed this down for FrankenTampa. But he has current on the brane.
All Parkervision's Prucnal had to show was a theory of generation that involved the mixer. Its not just that Prucnal was forced by the admitted observation that the circuit looks like a conventional mixer, but that Parkervision failed to provide definitive evidence/proof that the circuit operates by the broken-up theory.
Parkervision struck out on multiple counts: The theory of operation alleged during trial was disproved by observation. The baseband is generated both or simultaneously at the mixer and at the output of TX. It became very clear to Judge Dalton and now to CAFC judges who pounced on this inconsistency to beg PV's multiple attorneys to explain it. None were able to because the theory in the case was broken and there is no evidence to support either the theory used or the attempt to patch it up with a second (string) theory.
If Parkervision's theory used in the case had been put together impeccably, then they would have lost because they failed to show proof of operation for any theory that may have held together. Patent enforcement cases are unique in that they must show with exacting certitude the principal limitations of the patent claims are met. It is not like a case in which hobbling together enough facts, even if some are disjointed or inconclusive, can suffice. And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant.
There are two starting point assumptions in patent litigation: 1. The defendant does not infringe until proven to do so. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff's patents are valid until ruled by the court (or PTO) to be invalid. Invalidity and scope of coverage of the claims can be partially or totally ruled. If partially, a new trial may occur. If the scope is changed then even though the patents remain valid in toto, they may no longer apply to areas of the art in which the defendants products operate.
Recent US Supreme Court decisions put (unneeded) nails in PV vs. QC: In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., SC shifted the role of CAFC in determining factual evidence including de novo MARKMAN claims interpretation. "... the Federal Circuit can no longer apply the de novo standard to review findings of fact, Justice Breyer endeavored to explain how this would work in practice. " - cites from ipwatchdog and SC ruling.
"... to overturn the judge’s resolution of an underlying factual dispute, the Court of Appeals must find that the judge, in respect to those factual findings, has made a clear error. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6)." -ruling
Other decisions put added emphasis on clarity, full teaching, and scope of patent claims. This goes beyond the needs to 'nail down' PV vs. QC to inform the general climate of patent litigation.
You are not thinking at a out of context level of physics that bound wireless signaling including receipt and quantization of signals levels needed to get the most out of decoding processes. Parkervision's patents fail because they are fundamentally flawed. Your dickling around with with a non-definitive signal capturing process is working outside of the general understandings and laws of physics as accepted under the Shannon-Hartley.
I am sorry that you have dementia and cannot remember past discussions. I berate you prominently because you drag down a more stimulative discussion. That should be motivated by 1. investors making money, 2. Understanding rather than obscuring these subjects you profess to be rendering a valid opinion.
One might question whether SC's honing of the DC courts rights to determine factual evidence would work in favor of PV vs, QC; afterall, advocates have long quivered that Parkervision had won a broad and favorable MARKMAN ruling. Yes, and partly due to that PV's patents raise the higher standards for the court's scrutiny. This is not a typical circuit case because Parkervision claims to have invented a fundamentally new signaling process that invades across multiple sub-segments of communications signaling technologies and claims such dramatic outcomes for its use that they portend orders of magnitude improvement in performance. This is not figurative but is what PV's claims, including recent IPR papers conclusions.
So being, PTO must do more than a surface analysis by post grad business and legal accounting school work. They cannot afford to put their basket weaver judges in charge of the decisions.
That is not needed so much except to assure a fair hearing on the merits of the patents at the fundamental level Parkervision claims to have invented. And that, as a matter of course, is favorable to Qualcomm's and also to Mike Farmwald and RPX's joint IPR rulings.
"...t's way cheaper to buy S shareholders than TMUS, isn't it?" If this were a retail restaurant or any other business that you might better understand, would you buy it because it was cheaper or because it has the greatest return on investment potential? Of course, you would weigh your means for the location, physical assets, clientele in the area, past success or failure in that location, etc.
Sprint has a value as a business. Is that higher than the market says? The market is supposed to be the consensus of opinion among those who might acquire it or otherwise value it.
What does that say? It mostly says that tech stocks get speculated higher on M&A speculation in the sector they are in and back off as the market comes to digest what the odds and outcomes might actually be. So, how do you use that in the fututre? You look for pivotal situations and then for sets of players and likely actions.. or those that can have the flames fanned under them to most advantage. Let the chips fall where they may .. so long as you play the odds well and end with the largest stack of chips when they are cashed in.
Why hasn't some of the speculation panned out? Because, in the final analysis, both Sprint and T-mobile walk a thin plank towards long term competitive profits. T-Mobile has done well compared to Sprint. DISH has done even better.. the forces that be (including the FCC and DOJ) have smiled favorably upon the company's thinly fashioned aspirations because the overall hope is that the powerful ICT industry will not migrate towards monopoly and unruliness. We, the public, have some right to be fearful of 'The BORG Empire' being conspired out of the legalized monopoly and orchestrated architecting of our 'god given right' to communicate on an open, spiritually enlightening, or, at least, beneficial rather than maniacal most common thread of human organization.
Masa Son is no longer CEO so your hero idolizing will have a new target.
You profess Son isn't selling.. what isn't he selling? Softbank is a public company that has a board of directors , CEO, COB (Masa Son) that is highly directed towards doing good business. The direction the company has charted is toward Internet services and enabling enterprises including software, social networking and eCommerce. Softbank has directed away from expanding into communications infrastructure.
This is what the company itself has to say. Why would they do otherwise? The only reason would be if Claure were able to convince Softbank that Sprint could return a good ROI.. might not have to be even as good as other opportunities for acquisitions or new businss creation, because Sprint is somewhat of a stinking dead albatross around Softbank's neck. However, nobody knows what that is.. its not "8x8 MIMO base stations... unless someone has made them out of self-replicating unobtainium.
Stay in the kindergarten playground with your fellow numbnuts at Parkervision. Your posts show your ignorance.
It has been explained several times but you lack the ability to process the information.. and go off on your nonsensical explanations that have been solidly rejected by the courts. Why ry to convince you, if you cannot read and comprehend what has already been written? you will have to wait for CAFC and PTAB/PTO to crash your brane of alternative reality and then.. and then you will still be too ignorant to understand what has happened around you... or just lie well enough to convince that you are so ignorant so as not to be seen as a con artist ripoff.
Read the IPR information... you will fail to understand it so.. we wait.
The world is flat: the world of finance is a flat sheet of paper (or screen) with a spreadsheet printed on it. Sprint can build out band 41 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum but that costs 3x what it would cost to build out 600-700MHz. If Sprint has 2x-4x as many subscribers as rivals AT&T and Verizon, then that could be perfect sense. Sprint has about 1/2 the number as the two profitable rivals. Sprint's 'build factor' per subscriber is roughly 6X that of Verizon and AT&T and maybe 2X that of T-Mobile. Even though TM and S have nearly the same number of subscribers, it takes roughly double the base stations in 2.5GHz as AWS.
A new plan must either show a huge reduction in cost of deployment or must plunge Sprint deeper into debt or dilutive equity financing.
If Sprint (S) does not hold support at, look for 1st line of support at 4.30 and 2nd support level at 4.10. $3.79 is the previous intraday low of DEC of last year. Its unlikely to move that low unless caused by major news.
When Sprint paid dividends it was a valid long term investment based just on that. Otherwise, your summary of the price history shows S to have been a 'trading stock'. The company acquisition of Nextel at the peak of its value, paying $35 billion plus billions in subsequent losses (that might better have been spent acquiring 700MHz spectrum and network build), plunged it so deeply into debt that it remains struggling to dig out. Moody's rates the debt at sub-investment grade. That has made S a trading stock, not a valid long term investment.. guilty until proven innocent.
This could make for a fictitious Hollywood movie: Interlocking boards of directors hold a secret meeting to decide long term fates of the telecom companies... "Then its agreed, we dump the mismatched networks, troublesome spectrum, and have Sprint empty its money in Nextell Netwrecks. We clean out the bank on NN at the top, short Sprint, and ride it up and down. Of course management gets paid off for doing their part with stock options. Our buds on Wall Street clean up. When debt and competition has become hopeless, we sell to some foreign sucker, exalting the value of unused spectrum." The movie could add in scenes of high class #$%$, Wall Street manipulations, cocaine, and other shenanigans in the spirit of the genre. Weird idea but what if investors had that picture in mind? How well might they have done in trading the stock versus a long term (perpetual long) hold strategy? Sprint has done one thing for certain: its moved up and down... while the long term trend has been mostly sideways. And its accomplished that during a era in which wireless communications has grown up to become the largest consolidated enterprises in the world.. one that touches more people on the planet than bottled coke.
WiMAX was necessary as the only tech available at the time. How is was gone about was the problem. As a short-term solution, WiMAX did not turn out that bad considering it grew to over 11 million subscribers.
The mistake was in how Sprint went about WiMAX. If S had not acquired Nextel they may have gone about deployment of WiMAX differently - as small cells. Similar to the strategy Masa Son/Softbank used in Japan, they would then have had the thousands more smallcell sites to convert to LTE at relatively low cost. SB now has about 5X the number of BS sites than Sprint in a country a fraction the size of the US. Forsee failed to understand the long term direction of networks and part 2.5-2.6GHz could play. As it was, WiMAX did generate revenue from over 11 million subs.
WiMAX could have taken a much different direction: It could have pursued 700MHz starting 3-4 years before the auction. Sprint could have acquired 700MHz from Aloha Partners for what now looks like 'stealing candy from a baby' price. I chaired a panel with Charlie Townsend, Aloha Partners, Motorola, Airspan, and other companies in 2005 in San Francisco. In a side session with Charlie afterwards, he begged for development of WiMAX in the 700MHz band. Sprint could have bought 700MHz for a couple billion. AT&T latter bought it for $2.5B. The 12MHz was enough to get a good head start on the auction for a fraction of cost while affording build of a network 3-5 years ahead of Verizon. The long term strategy was to get to the multiple carrier, low-mid-high band networks in a step wise rather than rip-and-replace disruptive fashion. Foresee saw only far enough to show short term pyramid scheme gains.
What could Sprint do with 20-30 billion capex budget now? The Next Generation Network would be much more doable holding a mix of spectrum, capital & smallcell sites
Microsoft and Samsung are openly working together. They announced working relationship last year and came out with more details at CES this year. From Microsoft website:
"For consumers, pre-installed services* include the following:
As disclosed at Mobile World Congress, Samsung will pre-install OneNote, OneDrive and Skype on the new Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 edge. In the first half of 2015, Samsung is planning to pre-install Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, OneDrive and Skype on select Samsung Android tablets."
However, this is of a different ilk than IBM-Apple: IBM is mostly known as the leader in the business services sector, not handsets. IBM works across device manufacturers to provide secure interfaces and apps to data mining and business networks and apps. They work with Samsung as well. However, since Apple is the 'premium brand' analysts figure it is more to their advantage to parlay what started out as a consumer market leader into the enterprise and government sectors. Apple has good chances to succeed because they control the device, software and gateway to the applications more concretely.