Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Robert Syputa  

View Robert Syputa's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Sprint Earnings Review And The Way Forward [View article]
    Fairly even and well written article.

    However, Sprint has not experienced growth in core postpaid subscribers. Outside of 30k core subs, the growth appeared in add-on data subscriptions for pads/laptops. Add-on sub growth has become prominent growth vehicle among US mobile operators owing to the level of feature phone and SmartPhone penetration having reached near saturation. Add-on subs is going through a growth phase due to uptake in pads and otehr devices. However, that trend is unlikely to continue as it will most likely comprise only a portion of overall subscribers.

    In past years Sprint lost millions of core postpaid subscribers and has yet to solidly show a turnaround. Meanwhile, it continues to draft behind T-Mobile and marketshare leaders Verizon and AT&T when what is needed in order to say Sprint has turned around is growth that is substantial.. at a level it is proven to not be just a ripple. Ripples can be tradeable... but hardly reliable. A showing of around 200k+ net postpaid additions with solid guidance that the trend will likely continue would be more meaningful.
    Feb 10, 2015. 06:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Verizon Raises $15.5 Billion Through The Monetization Of Assets [View article]
    Thanks for the article and comments. This helps answer concerns over Verizon payment for recent AWS-3 auction and debt position. The trend for among the large wireless operators, both in the US and abroad, is to divulge themselves of or enter into shared infrastructure deals. The business model is migrating towards broadband based services that will require a shift in emphasis. Various operators, including Verizon, say this allows corporate management to focus more on emerging areas of revenue generation. I expect Verizon to keep on top of network infrastructure development, however, towers are one aspect of networks that makes sense to sell-leaseback.
    Feb 6, 2015. 01:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Sprint Is On Its Way For A Rebound [View article]
    The name is Syputa and I do the research.

    Sprint's backing by Masa Son isn't without bounds and a fresh staunch of investment from Softbank will not come without cost to present investors. The company certainly has many positive aspects, however, in a nutshell, it has fallen behind in networks due to a basic flaw: mis-matching of spectrum folio and of spectrum to deployment methodology. Softbank's Japan mobile operations were gone about much differently than Sprint. I won't go into the analysis here and, rather, suggest you do your own bottom up research.
    Feb 6, 2015. 01:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Sprint Is On Its Way For A Rebound [View article]
    I beg to differ with the recasting of the company pablum: Sprint has made incremental improvements that fall short of the goal for a 'turnaround' in subscribers, sales, margins, and network competitiveness. Sprint's results leave many unanswered questions about how the company is going to build a competitive position against a field that will step up deployments into their own recently acquired wideband spectrum.

    Sprint's once exclusive position in 2.6GHz band 41 spectrum has eroded over time due to lack of a robust deployment strategy. Band 41 now resides alongside existing and recently auctioned, easier and cheaper to deploy mid-band AWS spectrum. What stands between having spectrum and using it is a) a cost effective deployment strategy, and b) sales momentum that rolls up revenues from existing and new clients into fresh billion$ needed for the next round of deployments without dilution of current shareholders in the bargain.

    Sprint's recent results fail to demonstrate the sales and capital momentum needed to keep up with competitors, let alone make up lost ground.
    Feb 5, 2015. 08:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Patent stocks rally after Supreme Court's Teva ruling [View news story]
    Here we go again: many are jumping to conclusions of the impact of the US Supreme Court ruling on Teva. The ruling is specific to CAFC's deference to district court interpretations of patent claim construction and not to all evidence or legal proceedings. In some cases, this ruling does either nothing or can enhance the defendants case against the assertion of patents.

    Take Parkervision (PRKR) vs. Qualcomm (QCOM) for example: The district court under Judge Dalton has overturned the jury's finding that Qualcomm had infringed. It did not find for Qualcomm on the JMOL for invalidity. Under the new SC ruling, CAFC is inclined to consider Parkervision's appeal based on the Judge Dalton's MARKMAN ruling on claims interpretation. That had, for the most part, gone along with Parkervision to interpret the patent claims very broadly, thus allegedly casting Qualcomm (and many other potential defendants) into infringement. Parkervision's patents are being challenged in PTAB IPR proceedings and in the appeal to CAFC on the grounds that the broad claims construction is invalid as anticipated by multiple prior art.

    CAFC might otherwise have narrowed the MARKMAN to exclude some prior art. Although that might also have further excluded PV's patents from covering Qualcomm's products, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling is to assure that Parkervision's patents will be declared invalid.
    Jan 20, 2015. 08:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Updating My Outlook For AT&T And Verizon [View article]
    I agree with your revised view. Concerns about inflation has eased due to macroeconomic events: the rising supply of oil and gas alternatives has driven down the inflationary pressures that might otherwise arise as US economy growth takes a firmer hold. Growth in China has moderated downward. Much has been made of slowing growth in the China and the BRIC countries - while I do not think this is as precipitous or has as much influence on how the US economy will do than some analysts suggest, it does take pressure off of supply of raw inputs and lowers consumer goods inflationary pressures. The rapid decline in oil prices has led to a swing in the pendulum from concerns of inflation to concerns of deflationary price spiral. I don't think either is the case due to the more complex, international spread of markets that has balanced these factors in the past decade. Remember the saying "When America sneezes, the world economy catches a cold"? That has not been the case since the dramatic rise in the BRIC economies has occurred to the point that what happens in the USA, Europe or any single major economic block has become muted by offsets elsewhere.

    That has helped balance out domestic concerns about impacts of inflation - the US can continue to see growth because this is muted by slowing or declines in pricing of raw economic inputs and can contribute to a better and more sustainable balance of exports vs. imports. Domestic industries that are highly debt leveraged thus benefit from both a growing economy, in some cases expanding exports, and, meanwhile, low costs of borrowing. In the case of the leading ICT/mobile companies, Verizon and AT&T, the picture looks pretty darn good: Low interest rates to afford expansion into new spectrum-networks and bringing up of video/TV services and 'personal broadband' into the home and on mobile devices at a pace that outstrips what Sprint or T-Mobile can now afford.

    Jan 9, 2015. 12:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision obtains up to $7M in legal funding [View news story]
    This is the dying breaths of a boondoggle of a hayride.
    Dec 28, 2014. 10:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Judge Dalton, after careful consideration of the evidence in the case, decided as he should have. He gave indication of what he would do for the phase of the trial he was entertaining at that time, which was before fully considering QC's JMOL on infringement. The complexity of the technology requires understanding of details of the circuit, the claims, and evidence. The fact that Judge Dalton may have reversed an opinion made prior to the time he would consider the JMOL and evaluate the evidence in careful deliverance is welcomed but not unusual or misplaced.

    I had thought that DC judge would uphold the jury decision because the odds are often in favor. Prior to the trial, I thought PV/McKool would base their case on creating a story line of mistreatment on the part of big bad Qualcomm and that this might result in a faulty ruling that would then face appeal by Qualcomm. The only surprise is that Judge Dalton saw the light prior to having had his nose snubbed into the facts as presented by Qualcomm by a CAFC reversal. J.D. made the right decision and it will, with zero odds for reversal by Parkervision/McKool imo.
    Dec 26, 2014. 07:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Your post puts those who think Parkervisions patents are likely invalid as 'bashers'.. I have thought PV's patents to be invalid for about 15 years and, therefore, consider the PTAB ruling to be a confirmation and a concrete step towards invalidation. My calling it a zero chance is my educated opinion... and its the same as I have expressed repeatedly over the years. While PTAB is yet to hold the IPR and make such a ruling, the odds are extremely good imo.

    Longs have gone down a path going from declaring that the jury verdict would result in a large award and expressing that Dalton was a good judge. This ignored facts in the case, namely that Parkervision lacked evidence to support a ruling of infringement. When Dalton reversed the jury verdict, longs turned on his judgement and need for evidence of actual infringement. The issue of invalidity, which Dalton mentioned in his ruling, has seldom been brought up.

    My long standing conviction is that Parkervision's patents are invalid both because there is prior art that will render most if not all claims invalid and because the patents fail to clearly teach the claimed invention. Both of these points have been made in Judge Dalton's decision and have now been confirmed by PTAB.

    The odds of a District Court ruling being reversed is about 17% from recent studies of historical rulings. The chance for an IPR ruling resulting in one or more claims declared invalid is over 50%. The compounded odds of either of these to result in either a sustained DC ruling or striking of claims that would require a retrial is very high. The odds of a new trial resulting in a similarly outlandish award as the first jury verdict is, imo, extremely low. The compounded odds make this investment look outside the margin for the more risk tolerant investors to consider imo.

    However, its your money and you can bet how you wish. Either through PTAB IPR or a CAFC ruling, this case looks headed towards a conclusion within a year to 18 months.
    Dec 26, 2014. 07:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    You are avoiding two issues:
    The IPR petition was approved by PTAB with strong indication independent claims will be invalidated. That does not leave things as they were on the appeal.
    Secondly, the odds of gaining a reversal on appeal from CAFC have now become less than the 17% average odds of winning a reversal of a district court decision. I cannot find a direct corollary case. Anyone who is unbiased has to conclude the odds have gone down by a high percentage/

    Long investors only gain if they find suckers to place the same bets they had placed at time when the risks were lower. My opinion is PRKR has virtually zero chance of success in their legal battles and now is wrapping things up behind eh scenes. The new staunch of $7 million is mostly a scam: it is offered by an unknown litigation LLC and details are suspiciously elusive.
    Dec 24, 2014. 09:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Sprint And The Severe Market Overreaction [View article]
    Is it too late for Sprint to set out on a profitable path? It will take fundamental changes in how Sprint designs and deploys networks and how that is coordinated throughout the organization. Thus far, Sprint has continued to lag and shows little signs of making substantive changes needed.

    There remains a chance that Softbank could acquire DISH or pursue aggressive ground up marketing and deployments, but that remains a long shot imo. The timing now depends obtaining some 20-40MHz of 600MHz incentive auction spectrum. The costs, innovation, and time frame needed to deploy as the high capacity 'massively smallcell' operator make it unlikely to play catch up using the 2.6GHz band 41 spectrum.

    The course Sprint is on looks practical at getting Sprint to a more even playing field when what it would take to gain substantial share is being at the top in competition. Customers are not won by mediocrity.
    Dec 21, 2014. 07:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sprint And The Severe Market Overreaction [View article]
    There have been things Sprint should have long started on as an evolutionary pathway: Pursue user deployed network devices in 2.5GHz-2.6GHz or to have forgone it in favor of pursuing lower frequency bands as have all other competitors.

    Because Sprint was heading towards a day when competitors would gain access to easier to use wideband spectrum, Sprint either had to find a way to bring down the 2X-4X higher deployment cost to achieve requisite network density. The only feasible way was to have pursued smallcells with at least two thirds of them deployed by users.

    The current competitive trend that has lapped Sprint, once the only operator with 'wideband spectrum', is the use of 802.11ac Wi-Fi and preparing for or starting deployments for LTE-Fi or unlicensed cognitive radio/interference-mit... technology enhanced local cell/smallcell LTE with both LTE and WiFi fan out to individual users/points.

    Sprint would now be the "me too" follower of this trend behind T-Mobile, Verizon. However, Sprint has been poorly organized to take on that challenge. They needed someone like Steve Jobs to kick their behinds many years ago to push them on the right track. Sprint certainly didn't listen much to what I wrote over the years.
    Dec 21, 2014. 07:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Your windmill must tilt towards lollipops and fairy tales.
    Dec 21, 2014. 06:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Why entertain that improbability? PTAB did what has been expected of them. They will give Parkervision a fair chance to enlighten the judges that they a) have evidence that Qualcomm's circuit operates in a manner consistent with the Markman claims construction and yet are not invalidated by the overwhelming body of prior art. PRKR failed to live up to standards of proof in the District Court case. The PTAB panel is far better versed in communications technology and prior art. PRKR's technology has never taught a clear method and yet what they allege to teach goes outside the bounds of the rules of basic signaling. Those rules are bound by the laws of physics that have been tested beyond reproach. Any worthy physics student understands well enough that laws that are easily proven are far more reliable than the 'law' that the sun always rises.
    Dec 21, 2014. 06:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    In a nutshell, the PTAB ruling, although preliminary, holds that there is reasonable likelihood that the independent claims of Parkervision's core '551 patent is anticipated by prior art and, thus invalid.

    Parkervision's CEO, Jeff Parker, gave a perfunctory response, mentioning that one claim is omitted from the ruling. A reading of the claims and PTAB ruling show this is no saving grace: the independent claims judged reasonably likely to be invalid cover the basic methods Parkervision's portfolio of patents is built. The entire house of cards will tumble down if PTAB rules as it looks likely.
    Dec 20, 2014. 09:53 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment