Seeking Alpha
Long/short equity, hedge fund manager, hedge fund analyst
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

This is a response to the article on ParkerVision (NASDAQ:PRKR) yesterday:

We thought we would clear up some inconsistencies for shareholders of ParkerVision.

Until the verdict was announced on Infringement, what we had was a "BET" on Parker. After the verdict the shareholders had a true "INVESTMENT" in Parker. In our opinion, shareholders are in a 100% better position regardless of the inaccuracies of yesterday's seeking alpha article.

Please keep in mind our comments when you read these negative articles. As knowledgeable short sellers, we believe now is not the time to short this company. We refute the allegations in yesterday's article for the following reason's:

1. Parkers attorneys entitled to a contingency fee of 30% of award.

Other than the parties no one knows the actual amount due the attorneys. From our experience- if you take a contingency the higher the award, the lower the percentage. It was stated many times by Parker that this case was a partial contingency. The article's comments as to contingency are self serving. It's not worth more than this brief response, and to categorically state the 30% in my opinion is way too high.

2. Parkers royalties are on 152 million chipset's per year going forward

Qualcomm's expert, Dr. Leonard reveled in trial testimony that in the first half of 2013 over 128 million chips (these are Parkers chip technology) were shipped in the US alone. Revenue from these 128 million chips to Qualcomm would be approximately $433 Million. Assuming 0 growth you would have at least 256 million chips per year. There are small lies and big lies in the use of statistics, and from what I can see the shorts use all of them in the past 8 years when it comes to Parker.

3. We were at the trial I listened very closely to Parker's testimony.

Parker to the best of my knowledge and belief said "NO additional infringers have been VERIFIED although we have very strong suspicions that need to be verified"

4. There is a 20% chance that 19 of the 20 products found to be infringed will be thrown out by the judge.

Again, we were there in the court room unlike the individual whom we believe wrote today's article. The Judge allowed the jury to listen to arguments regarding the application of evidence for one product to apply to all products. True, the Judge has the ability to overrule a decision a jury makes, but it is very unusual and highly unlikely for any Judge to do so. Especially this Judge, who in our opinion is one of the most knowledgeable, no nonsense, and erudite judges in the Federal Judicial System. Folks, this is truly a misleading statement made by the author of today's article especially in light of the fact Qualcomm did not make a single argument during the trail to differentiate the other 19 products.

5. ParkerVision owes McKool a portion of the contingency fee and/or bonuses NOW ( 1/3 of the assumed 30% contingency) plus bonus was already paid on the Markman hearing outcome.

Any contingent fee is only payable when the proceeds are collected. To state otherwise is completely irresponsible. We consider it about 98% sure that any structured settlement would not include a bonus for McKool nor should a bonus be paid or was paid for the Markum hearings. It just does not make sense. The writer of this article is in our opinion totally misleading the readers by making such statements.

6. ParkerVision will have to use its working capital to fight the Maxtak litigation.

As disclosed in public filings, this litigation is covered under the company's insurance plans and ParkerVision is not incurring any fee's or out of pocket costs related to this litigation including the deductible. During Parker's testimony he clearly stated that this was a frivolous law suit. Shareholders should not give this issue a second thought. In addition - we believe that ParkerVision has approximately $20 Million in Cash. In our opinion the company has no need to do any additional financing for at least fifteen months. There is plenty of time to collect on judgments. We are told by council that appeals usually take no longer then nine months.

We felt compelled to write this response. We are knowledgeable short-sellers. We short stocks for fundamental reasons - when we believe that there are underlying issues, an upcoming event that will negatively affect price, or when a stock has become "overhyped". But there are other short-sellers who we believe act unethically to distort and misrepresent facts in order to affect price, and we believe this is happening here. The future of Parker is strong. In our opinion, they have plenty of cash, and their valid patents will provide a substantial revenue stream through settlement with additional violators and royalties from Qualcomm. Their strong position in the largest consumer product on earth is assured in the upcoming months let alone the upcoming years.

Source: Attorney Speaks Up On ParkerVision