The Mystery of ParkerVision

[spuwho]

Jacksonville based ParkerVision won their patent lawsuit against Qualcomm in Orlando on cell phone radio technology. They were awarded $173 Million.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-10-24/story/jury-awards-jacksonvilles-parkervision-173-m-qualcomm-patent-suit-stock

This company is a mystery because after selling off their only revenue producing products years ago ("D2D" WLAN adapters) they have continuously lost money. Lots of money.

There are people who have become somewhat disturbed at ParkerVision due to their mysterious source of funding. Just as the company starts to run out of cash, they conduct yet another public offering of stock (which always sells) and they continue once again for a year.

In fact the mystery has been running so long, there is a website dedicated just about them.

http://www.pvnotes.com/

They are quite blunt in their purpose....

As technical experts, we are offended by ParkerVision's lack of technical integrity. Since little or no feedback mechanism exists to correct the claims and misstatements made by and about the company, we therefore resolved to create a web site devoted to only posting the truth about ParkerVision.

We believe that as a technical community, we should join in the fight against fraudulent technical claims. As technologists and entrepreneurs, we are only as good as our credibility, so if you can show us where an article we posted on our website is wrong, then we will retract it and post such retractions. An important note: don't try to quote Jeff Parker to us to prove anything - our whole thesis is that Jeff is completely unreliable...

Wow, "fraudulent technical claims". Pretty stiff accusation, especially in light of recent litigation. They even comment that the patent PV claims has prior art.  Hmm.

Who keeps buying stock in a company that has lost money for years and years?

What's the scoop with ParkerVision?

[ProjectMaximus]

Perhaps the lawsuit has been pending for many years?

[spuwho]

I am not a broker or stock speculator, but many short sellers have said that the stock is worthless. Current owners were overjoyed when the stock went up, they could finally unload it before the floor fell out (which it did)

With no products that they can sell or OEM and out of capital to take anything on themselves, some believe this lawsuit is a final "hail mary" for the firm. The fact the stock fell 60% the day the verdict came out (due to ParkerVision saying they expected $500 million).

PV is currently trying to get an injunction against Qualcomm, but I suspect this will become a negotiating position to just have Qualcomm buy out ParkerVision and they can retire/cash out to stop the madness.

Time will tell.

[ChriswUfGator]

They've long since been a patent troll, spuwho is correct they sold off their actual business and now they just run around buying/selling patents and suing other people for infringement. 100% of their business is patent litigation. It can still be profitable, but mega high-risk and not really appropriate for a publicly traded company IMHO. All of them sue each other, but I mean the ones that just do nothing but that as their entire business, that seems risky as an investment strategy because only the lawyers know wtf is actually going on and they're not allowed to talk. I wouldn't invest in them.

[ProjectMaximus]

I am not a broker or stock speculator, but many short sellers have said that the stock is worthless. Current owners were overjoyed when the stock went up, they could finally unload it before the floor fell out (which it did)

With no products that they can sell or OEM and out of capital to take anything on themselves, some believe this lawsuit is a final "hail mary" for the firm. The fact the stock fell 60% the day the verdict came out (due to ParkerVision saying they expected $500 million).

I see, didn't know about any of this. Well, I think you've pretty much answered your own question about the company...

[jaxlongtimer]

Chris, your comments on PRKR are grossly inaccurate compelling me to respond.  PRKR has never sold or bought a wireless (its current business) patent.  All of its patents are for technology PRKR itself has created.  As a long time shareholder of Parkervision (PRKR) and acquaintance of management, I can assure you this company is legitimate.  It invented its own technology and is doing nothing more than protecting the millions of dollars of shareholder's monies invested in it's research, development, marketing, and legal protection from those who have now been proven, or may yet be proven, to have infringed upon ("stolen"?) it.  I say this as someone who has yet to make money on its stock but in recognition that, short of fraud, it is my personal responsibility to do due diligence on my investments and accept varying degrees of risk.  Nothing is riskier than investing in a company developing revolutionary technology with limited capital and experience.  Such is PRKR.

I had written an extensive history to post here but, unfortunately, MJ timed out and I lost it.  I don't care to go through that effort again, but suffice it to say, you can visit PRKR's web site, read PRKR's SEC filings, primarily its 10-K's, and/or Google the many articles on it to get all the finer details.  What you will find is a company that has (1) been viciously attacked by numerous short sellers spreading misstatements, outright lies, and making personal and defamatory attacks on PRKR and its management led by a Mike Farmwald, founder of Rambus (ironically, a true patent troll who created the "PV Notes" site mentioned for the purpose of manipulating the stock for his and others short selling advantage) and (2) been victimized by patent infringers (as just 100% proven in Federal court in a trial against Goliath, Qualcomm (QCOM), the $120 billion market cap behemoth of the wireless chip industry).  All of this has served to unfairly close doors to PRKR sales over these many years giving the company no choice but to pursue others to ensure its own survival.  By the way, the current case prevailing over QCOM is the ONLY lawsuit to date that PRKR has ever filed, hardly the behavior of a "patent troll" (again, see history of Farmwald's Rambus).

You will also find that the board, management, and key employees have steadfastly stood by this company and not, with the exception of incidental sales, sold their stock in it, even when it hit levels of $50 a share over 10 years ago.

If PRKR had a shortcoming, it was management's miscalculation as to the capital, time, and effort it would take to overcome its weak position in the market, to develop its technology to industry standards for mass chip production, and to, ultimately, protect and defend its investments.  It also underestimated the resistance to new technology by those with entrenched careers in technology that would be rendered less valuable/obsolete by PRKR's inventions.

PRKR has now been completely vindicated by the QCOM trial where all of its challenged patents where upheld and all the products of QCOM that PRKR alleged infringing use where so held to do so.  While PRKR did not get the finding of willful infringement (which would have allowed the judge to possibly treble the $173 million damage award), it has asked for an injunction against QCOM for use of its technology, is awaiting a finding and/or settlement with QCOM over future use royalties, and still may sue for international infringement (which may exceed U.S.) by QCOM as this case only involved U.S. infringement.  (I do note that QCOM has stated it will appeal but this could be just a negotiating tactic for settlement talks.) Further, PRKR may now proceed against others it determines have infringed and/or reach prior-use settlements and/or additional royalty agreements. 

Best of all, PRKR's standing in the world of wireless technology has finally been fully validated by independent parties which will give PRKR new credibility in an industry reluctant to accept a small, unheard of, newbie in the front door with what many, including QCOM, have determined is the "holy grail" of wireless.

PRKR's story, has no doubt, been a seesaw, but the market, as of the Friday close, still values the company at $287 million, certainly not peanuts.  This value reflects the average of a wide range of expectations to which each potential investor is entitled to.  If PRRK succeeds in developing ongoing and substantial revenues for use of its patented technology, the stock has the potential to rise multi-fold over current levels.  If, the company is drained of cash before so doing, it could face its demise.  However, over the last 15 years, or more, the company has never failed to raise new capital when needed, most likely due to its compelling technology which apparently has also withstood the tests of such investors.  For that, they have exceeded all expectations .

[ChriswUfGator]

Patent troll is a term of art, it's not necessarily a negative, just means that their sole business at this point is patent litigation. If that's untrue, then by all means, tell me what product do they make? And aside from enforcing patents, what revenue do they earn from any actual operations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity (PAE), is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.

At the end of the day you can certainly make money doing what they're doing, I'm not disputing that, it's just not personally something I'd invest in. At least not heavily. Most patent trolls are privately held because their revenue models don't lend themselves to being publicly traded. You lose however many hundred millions over five or ten years then one year you make a billion dollars, then you go back to losing money for however many years until a case pays off. It basically guarantees that the stock will be a permanent dog.

I'd get out. It's not necessarily anything to do with the company itself, just this business model itself doesn't garner a high P/E on a public issue, they always seem to be priced on a worst-case-scenario basis, and that kills it for me. This isn't a popularity contest; money doesn't care how you feel about it, and if you can't make any money then why hold the stock? That and it's inherently risky, litigation can always go the other way at any moment. Most companies they might report earnings that miss by a few cents and the board overreacts, but with a patent troll it's more like a small cap biotech with a small pipeline, if any of the cases in the pipeline blow up it's more of an all or nothing proposition.

Look, I'm happy you're pleased with your investment, reasonable people can and often do come to different conclusions. What would the world be if everyone thought exactly the same.

[jaxlongtimer]

A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity (PAE), is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.

Chris, I would be reluctant to use Wikipedia for a legal definition, but, even so, the quote you give does not cover PRRK.  Further, if you had quoted all of that portion of Wikipedia's article you would have noted an acknowledgement that, indeed, the term "patent troll" has "pejorative" connotations.  PRKR has "manufactured" new technology.  It has provided substantial services to assist in its development and use by third parties.  If you define "manufacturing" as a tangible product, it has produced actual working chips using its technology.  What PRKR hasn't done, is made true sales, to date, of its technology.  QCOM was given an inside look under non-disclosure agreements signed by its top management and then proceeded to violate them.  If you review the trial evidence, there were numerous QCOM emails evidencing QCOM knew exactly what it had and what it was doing.  That was why the stock rose to over $7 on the reasonable expectation by the market that the jury would surely find willful infringement providing for up to treble damages.  Some observers believe that one or more jurors held out on the required unanimous verdict based on withholding a finding of willful infringement.  Regardless, it was mainly that failure to deliver a finding of willful infringement that drove the stock down 60% that day.  It will be "fun" to watch and see if it rebounds substantially as the case proceeds and the market learns of the remaining opportunities to favor PRKR.

I already acknowledged the risk of this type of investment.  PRKR stock has swung wildly over the years from a high of $50 to a low of $0.33.  For much of its life, its stock has led the NASDAQ in short positions taken and percentages of daily change.  Plenty of day traders have loved this.  Long term longs and shorts, depending on timing, may or may not have done so well.  It is not much different than betting on a pharmaceutical company's efforts to bring a new drug to market.  It can be a real crap shoot.  But, now that PRKR's technology has been essentially endorsed by QCOM, the "Intel" of the wireless chip market, PRKR is much further along in becoming the "real" company you, I, and many others are looking for.  In the meantime, there is no shortage of far "less risky" stocks for you to invest in.  Just don't hang a company because it's business model overlays an inherently risky process.

By the way, Apple was close to bankruptcy, ironically, rescued by a Microsoft investment leveraged by disputes over patented technology.  You would be retired by now if you had made that bet.  But, hindsight is 20/20.

[ChriswUfGator]

Patenting things and suing on said patents isn't the same thing as manufacturing an actual product, it's called patent trolling. Like I said, it can be profitable, just not generally for the investors if it's publicly traded. Like I said before, reasonable minds can differ, but the fact that you signed up for this website for the express purpose of having both of your 2 total posts trolling for this company and what an awesome investment it is sort of solidifies your credibility on this topic.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, they just won a case and their stock actually dropped. I'll leave it to everyone else to figure this one out on their own.

[MEGATRON]

Lmao at comparing Parker Vision to Apple.

[fortissimo]

Patenting things and suing on said patents isn't the same thing as manufacturing an actual product, it's called patent trolling. Like I said, it can be profitable, just not generally for the investors if it's publicly traded. Like I said before, reasonable minds can differ, but the fact that you signed up for this website for the express purpose of having both of your 2 total posts trolling for this company and what an awesome investment it is sort of solidifies your credibility on this topic.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, they just won a case and their stock actually dropped. I'll leave it to everyone else to figure this one out on their own.

Since you repeatedly and adamantly that you are right, I took the time to register so I can respond here.

1. ParkerVision has made real products. If you know how to google you probably would have found out already (between your two posts, for example).

2. ParkerVision has made real products pertaining to wireless technology, related to the recent patent lawsuit against Qualcomm. I would like to bet you if I ship you a brand new in box ParkerVision WiFi product, that you would open it up and swallow the PCMCIA WiFi adapter whole into your stomach and keep it inside for 24 hours. If this products doesn't exist (I have more than 10 boxes here in storage, and sometimes still use some of them), then I will eat my own smartphone! I used to have all 3 products, now only have 1 (might still have the USB around but not in large numbers. The WiFi router is partly defective as the WiFi portion has died).

3. Patent troll, or simply the word troll in the internet cyberspace context, is indeed derogatory. You can't back paddle it now. Too late.

4. Are they heavily litigating as a company? I don't have x-ray vision to the future, but as of today, it is their only patent suit so far. But you said such term is used to describe company making only patent lawsuit and nothing else.

I don't care what kind of opinion you have on ParkerVision, its management or even the name. But if you can't even grasp the simple facts, which are so easily available on google, you simply won't win any arguments here (or elsewhere for that matter).

Or may be you are a troll. Now that would make sense.

[ChriswUfGator]

Patenting things and suing on said patents isn't the same thing as manufacturing an actual product, it's called patent trolling. Like I said, it can be profitable, just not generally for the investors if it's publicly traded. Like I said before, reasonable minds can differ, but the fact that you signed up for this website for the express purpose of having both of your 2 total posts trolling for this company and what an awesome investment it is sort of solidifies your credibility on this topic.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, they just won a case and their stock actually dropped. I'll leave it to everyone else to figure this one out on their own.

Since you respeatedly and adamantly that you are right, I took the time to register so I can respond here.

1. ParkerVision has made real products. If you know how to google you probably would have found out already (between your two posts, for example).

2. ParkerVision has made real products pertaining to wireless technology, related to the recent patent lawsuit against Qualcomm. I would like to bet you if I ship you a brand new in box ParkerVision WiFi product, that you would open it up and swallow the PCMCIA WiFi adapter whole into your stomach and keep it inside for 24 hours. If this products doesn't exist (I have more than 10 boxes here in storage, and sometimes still use some of them), then I will eat my own smartphone! I used to have all 3 products, now only have 1 (might still have the USB around but not in large numbers. The WiFi router is partly defective as the WiFi portion has died).

3. Patent troll, or simply the word troll in the internet cyberspace context, is indeed derogatory. You can't back paddle it now. Too late.

4. Are they heavily litigating as a company? I don't have x-ray vision to the future, but as of today, it is their only patent suit so far. But you said such term is used to describe company making only patent lawsuit and nothing else.

I don't care what kind of opinion you have on ParkerVision, its management or even the name. But if you can't even grasp the simple facts, which are so easily available on google, you simply won't win any arguments here (or elsewhere for that matter).

Or may be you are a troll. Now that would make sense.

Sure, bring me a box containing anything actually manufactured by Parker Vision (that's 1: Not from ten years ago, and 2: Isn't somebody else's product with whom they're enforcing or licensing a patent) and I'll eat my words. By all means, come by my office with it, 2720 Park Street.

Of course, until then:

[spuwho]

Per the Jax Daily Record:

ParkerVision sees $60 million a year from Qualcomm

Monday, November 18, 10:40 AM EST
By Mark Basch, Contributing Writer

ParkerVision Inc. was awarded $173 million in damages from Qualcomm Inc. last month by a federal jury in Orlando, but Chairman and CEO Jeff Parker sees that as only the beginning.
The $173 million was for past damages, but the verdict in the company's patent infringement lawsuit also gives ParkerVision an opportunity to reap future royalties from Qualcomm.



During the Jacksonville-based company's quarterly conference call with investors last week, Parker said those royalties should equal at least $60 million a year for the next decade.

The jury decided that Qualcomm has been manufacturing products using ParkerVision's patented wireless technology. ParkerVision will be filing a motion with the judge in the case seeking an injunction prohibiting Qualcomm from continuing to use the technology, or for Qualcomm to pay royalties if it continues to use it.

Parker thinks Qualcomm will not stop using the technology.

"We believe it is clear, based on Qualcomm's witnesses' own testimony, that Qualcomm currently does not have any non-infringing alternatives available, and the development of a non-infringing alternative would take years," he said.

Therefore, Qualcomm should pay royalties for its use of ParkerVision's patents, which run through 2022, he said.

Based on testimony at the trial, Parker said Qualcomm is shipping more than 250 million units a year using the technology, and the jury awarded ParkerVision 23 cents per unit for previous use of it. That would equate to almost $60 million a year for ParkerVision, but the company will argue for a higher royalty rate.

"We will be requesting that the court enhance the rate found by the jury since Qualcomm's post-verdict infringement will unquestionably be willful," Parker said.

The downside to all this for ParkerVision is that the company hasn't seen any money yet and even the $173 million awarded by the jury could be overturned on appeal. While Parker is confident the company will ultimately win in appellate court, he acknowledged the process could take more than a year if Qualcomm continues to fight.

In the meantime, ParkerVision is still losing money. The company last week again reported no revenue for the third quarter and a net loss of $6.4 million, or 7 cents per share.

ParkerVision is continuing to work on deals to license its wireless technology to other manufacturers, and Parker said the results of the Qualcomm trial will help its efforts.

"With a favorable verdict in District Court behind us, we believe the path is clear for ParkerVision to become an active and rightful participant in the wireless market and to secure our place in the ecosystem that makes the wireless marketplace the economic powerhouse it has become," he said.

[spuwho]

The patents that PRKR took to court are as follows:

6,061,551
6,266,518
6,370,371
7,496,342
7,515,896
7,724,845
7,822,401

ParkerVision's patent portfolio can be view on Google Patents here:

https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=ParkerVision&tbm=pts

The court ruled that 4 were violated.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm aware of all this, and already gave my analysis of why the stock will continue to be a dog regardless. Again, reasonable minds can always differ. Sounds great though, by all means...buy, buy, buy. Long as it's with your money not mine.