Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (196145)	10/23/2025 7:50:52 AM
From: JeffreyHF	3 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John GR8FORM matherandlowell Respond to of 196409

Expedite the denial of an appeal from a frivolous lawsuit, by a company whose business is frivolous litigation?

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (196145)	10/23/2025 11:56:18 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	5 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John Lance Bredvold manning18 matherandlowell sbfm Respond to of 196409

Because ParkerVision was granted the right to appeal, and because this is a patent lawsuit, the appeal can only be heard only in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. Note that the right to appeal the second ParkerVision lawsuit in 2020 was granted by a federal district court in Florida by a judge who at first ruled against ParkerVision but then reversed himself in 2022, on grounds that a jury (like the judge himself) could not understand the technology related arguments of plaintiff and defendant. The appeal might eventually reach the Supreme Court, which has been inconsistent on whether it's okay for a jury verdict in a federal district to be set aside because the judge decides the jury can't understand what's going on. That is, the US Supreme Court ruled that abortion issues are up to the states to decide (states' rights), not the federal government. But then SCOTUS also questions whether state and local law enforcement officers have a right to interfere with or prevent federal officers from appending and deporting alleged local lawbreakers in lieu of state orders banning such federal activity. So if the Supreme Court even decides to grant a hearing on the ParkerVision issues, whose life after all these years depends on a change of heart in a state that has become more conservative politically, they will make themselves look like stooges. There's no way to predict the outcome at this point. But after reading summaries of both ParkerVision cases, it seems to me that ParkerVision neglected to rebut the arguments presented by Qualcomm, as to why there are substantial differences between the RF patents that each party holds and depends on. Art