The presentation is at the Oppenheimer 17th Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference. The conference is held by Oppenheimer, and scheduled by them for a number of presenters and has nothing to do with any particular thing on OLED's agenda. Probably a repeat of the wonderful things they say in the earnings call.
You keep conflating issues that might have justified a verdict of non-infringement with evidence that would justify a JMOL. They are not the same thing, and are decided on vastly different standards.
And what the hell is "assuaging" in this context?
No, I blame McCool, Smith. They blew the JMOL hearing. If Qualcomm is granted a new trial, they should handle it free of charge.
Congratulations. You have touched on the crux of the matter. Prucnal presented a cogent case, then, after having done so, in the minds of some, he contradicted himself. There was a cogent case and an apparent contradiction. That is precisely the kind of matter that a jury is trusted to resolve. It is precisely not the kind of thing that justifies a judge issuing a JMOL for non-infringment.
I would not have been happy had the jury found no infringement, and I am sure I would be looking for some grounds for appeal, but the jury DID find infringement. If the appeals court does its job, either the jury verdict will be reinstated, or Qualcomm will get a new trial.
*** I am amused by their lack of basic understanding of the subject matter.***
I am sure they return the favor.
And what the hell are you talking about?
If the appeals court orders a new trial, I believe it goes back to Dalton. Among his options is a summary verdict of non-infringement, which would likely be the subject of a new appeal.
The clarity of the case for infringement is one thing; the clarity of the case for a JMOL is another. I did not think that Cawley put on the best imaginable case for infringement, but he did put on a case. While the jury might reasonably have decided against infringement, there was clearly sufficient evidence for the jury to have the right to decide. Dalton is saying that the jury had no such right as there was no real case presented. He begged Budwin for help in deciding otherwise, but got nothing.
At the appeals level, the deficiency of Budwin's work is irrelevant. The information that Dalton needed was what was presented to the jury. If the appeal attorney does a better job of explication of what it was exactly that the jury got to see, then I think we should emerge victorious.
And did you hear the part where Cawley said that the JMOL was the last thing they expected, and, apparently, the last thing they prepared for. By comparison to the reasoned response at the meeting, Budwin offered nothing for Dalton to hang his hat on at the May 1 meeting in support of what should have been Dalton's decision to deny the JMOL request.
To me, that was lawyering bordering on malpractice.
I have had nothing bad to say about Dalton. He seemed to learn a lot about the technologies prior to the trial and was quite diligent in his conduct of the trial. If I were to make any criticism, it would be related to enforcement of discovery, lack of sanctions for the behavior of Qualcomm's attorneys, and the 20-hour testimony limit for each side.
While I think that he ultimately made the wrong decision on the JMOL, he got no help from the ParkerVision legal team in pointing out aspects of the trial record that supported a denial of that motion.
It is humorous to see any and all such opportunities to make things political in order to disparage President Obama. It would be more humorous if it were less sad.
The quality of the case that Prucnal made is, for the purposes of issuance of the JMOL, irrelevant. He made a case. It was for the jury to assess the quality.
ParkerVision's legal team, however, was woefully underprepared for the JMOL hearing, believing, as they did, that it was no big deal.
how did I guess that you would not admit having gotten the meaning of the case cited completely wrong.
ParkerVision entered into some kind of development agreement with LG-Innotek in December, 2008. I believe that is well after the agreement with VIA. I don't recall any news that the development has been abandoned, nor that it has yielded any fruit.
If I read you correctly, you are impugning Judge Dalton's integrity.
I don't see it that way. I think Judge Dalton approached the May 1 hearing with the intent of denying Qualcomm's request for a JMOL. When faced with the case that Neal presented, he looked to the plaintiffs for a position and an argument which would support his denial of the JMOL request and got nothing or worse.
He had to be ticked off. How could he deny the JMOL request when the plaintiff's attorneys could give him no good reason? This is Cawley's failure, not ParkerVision's, and it is not the judge's fault.
In the document presented to the analysts' meeting yesterday, Cawley offered a very cogent argument rebutting the fanciful ideas that Neal had presented on May 1. Where was that argument on May 1? Had not Cawley anticipated the argument that Neal was to make? Did they not read the tripe presented here?
As he said yesterday, Cawley thought that a favorable ruling on Qualcomm's JMOL request was the least likely outcome of the trial. He was overconfident and under-prepared, and we will pay the price.
"hoist", by itself, without the "ed", suffices as the past tense. Your apparently corrective [ed] is unnecessary and incorrect.
And my original comment had nothing to do with any prediction, but did have everything to do with your totally inapt comparison of the two cases, which comparison supports my case and not yours.
1. By winning the appeals, I mean ALL the appeals, including the ones that will likely follow the IPR ruling, one way or the other.
2. If ParkerVision's patents survive with suitably broad claims, it will be very difficult for Qualcomm to develop a non-infringing circuit that is not clearly inferior.
If they win the appeals, Qualcomm is their partner in the cell phone market going forward. I believe Cawley said that he expected a ruling from the Appeals Court in the first half of 2015.
The point was made that in some of the markets they are addressing, long-term partnerships are not as important as in the handset business.
How was LG treated?
That is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You really are clueless, are you not?
Oh, and the audio stopped after about 1'45". Sounded like the recorder ran out of juice. Should have had an ac supply.
I came away very impressed with Bob Sterne and Kevin Rivette, personally and professionally. Sterne's emotional remarks remind of the old metaphor about involvement and commitment, as reflected in a ham and eggs breakfast. In such a breakfast, the chicken is involved; the pig is committed. Sterne is committed. I hope he forgives my unflattering comparison. I suspect I would love the characterization of Farmwald that he didn't quite express. Just plain Farmwald.