Seeking Alpha

Robert Syputa

View as an RSS Feed
View Robert Syputa's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The War Sprint Can't Afford [View article]
    Sprint's network is sub-par the competition because of a fundamental mismatch of spectrum and how its deployed. This limits the impact that Sprint can have by changes in pricing plans and marketing to, no more than, modest gains in subscribers. While that would be a great change from the losses over the past few years, it will be short of the lofty expectations.

    Sprint's fundamental spectrum and network design problems will not get fixed completely until S either a) Acquires wideband sub 1 gigahertz spectrum: 600MHz auction being the only near term coming available. or b) Sprint designs a network solution to deploy 2-3 times as cost effectively in the vast but largely unused 2.6GHz B41 spectrum.

    The market has become more sophisticated over time in its demands: quality and coverage with adequate bandwidth is more important than peak bandwidth with metro spot coverage. Sprint's improvements are slow because the method of deployment is costly and slow. Multiple network surveys support this, showing Sprint as the lowest in network performance including average bandwidth or bandwidth-to-coverage. This will persist despite incremental network improvements for a few more years unless dramatic design changes are made.
    Aug 21 08:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The War Sprint Can't Afford [View article]
    The 'price war' is negative only if it is out of step with the progression of industry capabilities.

    The wireless industry is bound by how the technologies and utilization of spectrum progresses that is similar to Moore's Law for semiconductors in many respects and, in fact is enabled by semiconductors at its core. Moore's Law states that there is roughly a doubling of capacity/power in semiconductors (expressed very notably in processors GPUs and memory that have enabled both the PC and networking industries to flourish.. and so too the wireless industry) every 18 months. In a similar formula, wireless networks have roughly doubled in capacity about every 18 months. This has allowed more features to be encompassed, including broadband and video services, which are fueling expanded use at a rate of doubling every 12-18 months.

    Also similar to Moore's Law, the cost of delivering bandwidth is doubling while the cost of delivering it stays the same or goes down because of both higher efficiencies that result in lower cost per bit, and also because more diverse set of revenue generating services can be supported. There is always a 'eat your own' survival of the newest and fittest service capabilities that is part of this equation. As voice and text messaging have become commodities that make up a shrinking slice of of the overall revenue pie, video/TV and broadband revenues have grown to supplant and grow cannibalized commodity revenues as part of the evolving mix.

    That comes back to Sprint's position: waging a 'price war' while the fundamentals of their networks remain sub-par and higher cost than the competition.

    Sprint's problem is that, while having the largest amount of spectrum, the bulk of that is in the high frequency 'broadband extension band' (as ITU and 3GPP have termed it) that is more costly and difficult to achieve the bandwidth-to-coverage mix of capabilities consumers can get from competitors. The lack of wide channels in low frequency coverage band makes Sprint coverage look like 'lumpy gravy': it can offer high peak bandwidth with low latency in areas covered by the full contingent of Spark bands including 2.6GHz LTE band 41, but suffers low bandwidth in other areas compared to current competitive coverage profiles of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile.

    Sprint can't fix that unless they were to deploy differently into 2.6GHz or acquired wide channel spectrum in the low and mid bands, particularly the low band. That will not happen soon given that merger with TMUS is out and DISH also lacks wide channel low band.

    Sprint caught between a rock and a hard place until they can catch back up with "Moore's Law of wireless". They could have done that using "Moore, Cooper, Alamouti's Law" for wireless progression but the guys running Sprint were idiots.
    Aug 18 12:59 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Litigation is not a good model, enforcement of valid patents as a late inning part of developing technology certain can be.

    Parkervision has patents that have basic flaws: they do not teach practical application of technology and many of the claims will be invalidated imo.

    The company lost its legal battle against Qualcomm.

    It will not recover from that.

    Yes, stick a fork in it, done.
    Aug 13 05:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Potential Damage Award = $5 Billion, 5x Prior Award Plus 10 Years Future Royalties. Price Target = $50 [View article]
    Hmmph! My uninformed and unqualified opinion was confirmed by Judge Dalton's ruling chump.
    Aug 9 10:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • There Is More Alibaba Magic In Sprint Than Yahoo [View article]
    No free lunch. Being in the investment business, you know that Softbank does not give away 'free money'... money or commercial advantages without getting something in return. Even though Softbank owns 81% of Sprint, they are very likely to treat similar to any of their subsidiaries - if the fund Sprint or provide it with commercial advantage, it will be as debt or in exchange for other commercial considerations.
    Aug 9 10:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iliad's Acquisition Of T-Mobile Could Leave Sprint Up For Grabs [View article]
    That is a start. The FCC has set the auction rules to assure that at least 30MHz will not be dominated by the financially stronger AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile and, more recently, Sprintsy wintsy have said they plan to bid on the spectrum. Their chance of getting 22+ MHz are pretty good.

    To compete effectively a balance between spectrum bands and how they are built out to deliver a complimentary multi-carrier network-of-networks is needed, (call it Spark or molasses, all operators are pursuing multi-carrier aggregation). The 600-700MHz bands are most feasible currently available to provide the 20MHz (plus guard bands) needed to provide wide area voice/messaging and baseline broadband service. Mid band spectrum is the next most useful band.
    Aug 6 06:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iliad's Acquisition Of T-Mobile Could Leave Sprint Up For Grabs [View article]
    Yea, LOL, you need to check your facts before posting for others to do so.

    DISH tried to buy Clearwire but was rebuffed by the majority owner, Sprint. Behind the headlines, Sprint sued DISH to block that attempt to acquire Clearwire as a violation of the governance agreements and laws of incorporation. Following initial pre-trial hearings, DISH dropped their bid for Clearwire. Ergen/DISH then made an offer to acquire Sprint which was rejected by the BOD in favor of Softbank.
    Aug 5 02:20 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    Patents play an important role in the lives of people who do research or work for companies in the wireless ICT field. Its important to understand where technology is headed and where it is being steered off course. Companies like Parkervision have turned up from time-to-time touting leaps forward in technology for emerging fields. Because the wireless field is large and impacts most people's lives directly, it has great magnetic power to lure time, energy and capital in diverse directions. Some of us think that divergent efforts that have little or no merit are a negative in the formation of technology and diversion of funds that might otherwise be used for better purposes, including funding of worthy technology startups.

    For whatever reason you may like to believe, as a reviewer of patents in formative areas of technology and provider of guidance to among the world's largest companies and most innovative startups, I feel compelled to try to set the facts straight where I think the public is being taken advantage, as was the case of Parkervision.

    The court has ruled as Mike Farmwald, I and others have suggested would happen. You do not have to agree with that and have been free to invest (sic) your money in PRKR and argue for others to join you in what I believe is utter folly. Time will judge if Parkervision is able to upset the ruling against the odds and hold onto their patent claims. For all I care, invest more in PRKR, the game is, for the most part, over as far as my interests are concerned.
    Aug 5 10:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • No Surprises With Sprint [View article]
    You said: "Sprint is a small, nimble firm operating in a space with several massive competitors." I disagree. Sprint and Softbank have shifted focus since the Sprint acquisition but remains less nimble than competitors due to fundamental issues of disparate networks and imbalance of spectrum.

    On one hand, Sprint has, on paper, among the largest amounts of unused spectrum of any operator in the US or in the world for that matter. The much touted 140+ MHz of spectrum in the 2.5-2.6 GHz LTE band 41 remains largely unused to service customers.

    Meanwhile, Sprint lacks sufficient spectrum in the low and mid range spectrum bands which cripples the ability to convert networks to LTE and provide competitive coverage at high bandwidth. The Network Vision plan to deploy 'Spark' tri-band service fails to compete effectively with Sprint's three major competitors because the lower bands lack high bandwidth while the higher band remains largely unused, serving as a metro-zone overlay using devices not yet in the hands of the majority of customers and no competitor's customers.

    The spectrum straight jacket leaves Sprint-Softbank management unable to become nimble in delivering core network coverage-bandwidth service quality.

    I agree that Sprint-SB have made good strides in areas not bound by the core constraints in spectrum, networks and tri-band device penetration. However, this nonetheless is resulting in being the only major operator that is losing marketshare despite heavy investments in their out of the mainstream spectrum that will remain unless/until Sprint does one of three things:

    1) Uses band 41 in a way that is cost effective while providing greatly increased coverage of POPs.
    2) Acquire more sub 1 GHz spectrum, obviously through the upcoming 600 MHz auction. Participation in AWS spectrum would also help but is closer to their underutilized band 41 such that there is much functional overlap. Its also incongruent for Sprint... there would likely be little or no commonality of device service with other operators despite use of the same general AWS band. This likely makes is priority for Sprint to win at least 22 MHz and, desirably, twice that in order to get on a more 'nimble' competitive path.
    3) Acquire T-Mobile. While the prospects for gaining regulatory approvals is shifting to greater likelihood, the odds remain a toss up at this juncture. Perhaps by as early as the forth quarter of this year the odds of approval will be fair enough for Softbank-Sprint to make an official offer for T-Mobile. These odds are likely to gradually improve going into 2015 such that they will become better than even, call it 2:1 by the middle of next year imo.
    Jul 13 09:50 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    It can be misleading to say that Parker's patents/claimed technology works. Its typical for investors to jump from the a discussion of patents 'working' to considering that one and the same as the patents having monetary worth to the company as valid. I started posting on Yahoo! PRKR that the patents do not 'work' from the perspective of teaching an invention. A patent that describes prior art, perhaps using new terminology and overly broad formulas, as does Parkervision's D2D and D2P patents, is not valid. Therefore, it does not describe anything that 'works' because in order for a patent to be valid, as the Supreme Court case on validity found in Nautilus v. BioSig, 2014: "To facilitate this notice function of patent claims, the patent statute requires that the “claims particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The courts have wrapped these requirements in a doctrine known as indefiniteness. A patent claim that fails the test of indefiniteness is deemed unpatentable, invalid, and unenforceable." From the start, PV's patent were required to teach an invention that was not covered by prior art, ie. was unique and non-obvious. Furthermore, the patents had to be useful to the field or it simply would not be found to be practical and get into highly competitive fields such as for wireless mobile device chips. I think its misguided to give the hypsters enough rope to hang themselves (and others who are gullible to be persuaded by the misguided conclusions) that PV's "patents work".

    Parkervision's initial patents did not 'work' commercially from the get go. The subject matter was broad and rapidly evolving such that follow on patents theoretically might have been developed that taught an invention based on the core concepts of variable aperture sampling imo. I do not think that the conversion of carrier wave to baseband is feasible as an invention... 'power' from a received signal is captured in conventional circuit signal sampling by switched/gated input into an appropriately matched capacitor-resistor pair with suppression of switching, harmonic, and circuit noise. Qualcomm's quad-input dual balanced mixer uses the TX filter, for example to filter the potential jamming from the much higher magnitude nearby TX signals and harmonics. What PV argued in court was ludicrous: using that pair to accumulate RX carrier signal energy that transfers to the baseband signal. It defies basic signaling theory... a good RF engineer hardly needs to go to Shannon-Hartley theorem to understand why its not possible let alone not practical. Faced with that being a supposed 'teaching' of the patents under the overly broad interpretation that might be given to the claims is trying to anser to a lala-land argument that the 'patents work'.. Heck no, they DO NOT work... because as construed broadly to cover prior art and invalid circuit methodology, Parkervision's patents never have been and never will be valid.
    Jul 10 12:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    Children, grow a brain and talk facts, not this gibberish.

    What are your credentials to know what the science is in the wireless field? What is your experience in patents? What is your understanding of the theorems/laws of electronics, signaling communications, semiconductor fabrication and design, etc.?

    Until proven otherwise, I take you for a noob.
    Jul 10 09:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    Maybe MF just likes to puck with your head...

    You ask such lame-arse questions...

    Seriously.. PV's patents have been a farce from day one: a skillful crafting of gobbledygook based on re-phrasing of circuit conventions to make it appear that the alleged invention is a new process unknown in the prior art. That might have been because the patent examiner was inundated by irrelevant prior art references and confusing use of terms and formulas that, upon full examination, are indefinite and confusing. Its sometimes the case that a patent uses terms that are not the accepted vernacular of those in skilled in a specific segment of technology. That is OK so long as the terminology, formula, and description that explains how the invention might be applied, the breath of the application which impacts how prior art might overlap. If the patent, as is the case with PV's patents, makes up terms that are vague, confusing such that they do not teach the use of the invention to those skilled in the art, then, as the recent US Supreme Court ruling confirms, is not patentable/valid.

    Furthermore, even though its a bit outside of the degree of proof needed to debunk Parkervision patents in the IPR, PV's patents allege to teach methods that violate basic laws of communications circuit theory. Not only are PV's patents covered by prior art, if the methods as 'taught' by PV are carried out as exampled in Parkervision v Qualcomm, the field of technology will need to throw out among the most sacred Laws of communications theory, Shannon-Hartley Theorem... among others.

    As this will eventually unfold it will become more than clear... it will become a total blasphemy. Mike Farmwall probably has economic motivations for having spent so much time debunking this charlatan company's patents. Parkervision is now road kill waiting to be scrapped up and thrown to the side of the road... MF might just find it so rewarding to see that final heave-ho of this rotting corpse that its worthwhile even so.
    Jul 9 10:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]

    I wrote that PV's patents were useless and briefly explained why on my website, over eight years ago. That site has not been active for a few years due to WiMAX's misdirection.
    Jul 9 02:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    You are deluded and irrational. Parkervision has lost because their alleged technology does not work. You can claim whatever you wish about Qualcomm or others 'stealing' PV's technology.. your statements are blatantly not legitimate. Judge Dalton ruled on this DF.

    Far along the way, there has been no proof the D2D or D2P technologies work. You may claim my analysis is 'mediocre at best'.. what would I expect from you, praise that I, MF and other's have shown you to be bullheadedly wrong?

    Again, I looked at the D2D patent applications that PV was hyping prior to being granted... and wrote that the technology had little or no practical value... it could not work in the way PV asserted for the applications they claimed it would apply. Heck, I was being rather gracious - I allowed that there might be some method to their madness in developing a variable signal acquisition aperture methodology based on the initial core patents. Nothing ever developed along those lines. Parker went on to try to sell the tech to this that and the other company.. do you remember that? They never developed a useful application. I bought six of PV's 802.11b (still have a couple torn-down units). I put those units on a signal analyser and looked at the antenna gain v what is normally used in such units (Skycross vs board trace or other near zero cost antenna) ... it basically contributed all of the signal improvement claimed for the tech. I saw nothing due to the circuit technology that performed as well as the then new 802.11n units entering the market. However, this was only a confirmation that the patented technology held little or no benefit... I did not need that to gain a fundamental understanding of what the patents are supposed to teach... Judge Dalton's conclusions are that the patents and explanations given by Mr. Fairy Dust Sorrells and the expert witness are too vague and unconvincing to teach much if anything in relation to Qualcomm' mainstream wireless use at least.

    "Neener, neener, neener"... you are on the losing side... grow up and stop dissing those who have been right and tried to educate your sorry rumpus.
    Jul 9 02:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    The strategy many companies pursue in technologies that seek wide adoption or are bound by standards is to seek adoption within standards groups/committees. These efforts tend to cause companies and individuals to both promote their select approaches to technology and to learn from within these groups where trends in technology are heading. That leads, if they are diligent to keep up with the fast pace of inter-woven layers of developments, to push further into the same and corresponding areas of technology. If they have a strategy to pursue patents, then its incumbent on participants to file for patents on their own original inventions and, as has been my experience, all companies are prone to do, file for improvements in their own and other's patents.

    You are, at least in part, condemning the worldwide accepted industry and legal conventions. That is OK to condemn how the 'system works' because the system is partly cooperative, partly conspiratorial, and partly adversarial in how it is designed and functions. The standards process requires participants to cooperate even though they also often will compete over the fruits of their common efforts. The pursuit of patents and enforcement depends on some degree of cooperation to get them made part of the essential cookbook of standards methodologies... and then to battle for a share of the results.

    The rules for conduct are bound by FRAND standards agreements and industry practice and then by legal precedent as it and the laws that govern it evolves.

    This article was not focused on Rambus or the broad issues of patent frameworks or practices. Parkervision v Qualcomm has distilled down to rulings on infringement and validity which, while still bound within the broader context has narrowed in focus.

    "When you don't like the message, hang the messenger" The message is that Parkervision has no valid patents that Qualcomm infringes. The IPR will likely rule that PV's four core patents are invalid with D2P being next on the chopping block if the case moves forward.
    Jul 8 03:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment