PV Notes comments on Barrons' ParkerVision article

We did talk with Bill Alpert, who wrote the Barron's article. We (Barb Paldus and Mike Farmwald) think that Bill quoted us accurately and fairly. We certainly stand behind the statements attributed to us in the article. We have talked to most of the potential partners and customers for ParkerVision D2P (and D2D) technology, and feel strongly that there is little or no interest in D2P and there is a widely held belief that D2P doesn't currently work (ParkerVision is still showing a breadboard with an FPGA - three years after announcing "working" D2P chips!) and can't be made practical. This is especially true among those who have seen the technology.


Contrary to Jeff's repeated and emphatic statements in a number of the 2007 ParkerVision conference calls that "no OEM has ever turned ParkerVison down", a significant number of the "OEMs", after looking at the ParkerVision D2P technology, did tell Jeff they were not interested in licensing the technology, and that they were skeptical that it even worked. In fact, at this point, we can find no major players in the cell phone industry who still take ParkerVision seriously.


We did hire three consultants to look at the ParkerVision D2P patent and provisionals. All of them were negative. Only Steve Cripps was quoted by Mr. Alpert, probably because he is one of the the most well known experts in the world on PAs and literally "wrote the book" on RF power amplifers.We have talked to Steve, and he is willing to take Jeff Parker up on his offer to visit ParkerVision - but will not sign an NDA that would prevent him from discussing his findings.


Finally, we feel confident that the ongoing (2008 and on) consulting, licencing and royalties from ITT will be essentially zero (rounded to the nearest $100K, say), certainly not the total value of $25M that Jeff is still claiming, and definitely not the "$5M-8M in 2008" that he reported at several of the sessions at the 2007 AeA conference in Monterey, CA. It appears, especially from a financial perspective, that Jeff's "Validation, Validation, Validation" mantra is more about raising the next PIPE, than creating real technology and parlaying it into tangible revenue.


To quote Abraham Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?  Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."   Similarly, calling a supposedly revolutionary technology ESP doesn't mean it actually works and will change the communications industry, unless, of course, Jeff really meant "Extra-Sensory Perception".