Parkervision Q3 2005 Earnings Call
November 07, 2005
Paul Henning, Cameron Associates - Investor Contact
Cindy Poehlman, Chief Financial Officer
Jeffrey L. Parker, Chief Executive Officer
Scott Robertson with Halpern Capital
John Bucher with Harris Nesbitt
Wilson Jaeggli with Southwell Partners
Mark Gaskill with MKG Financial Group
Operator: Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third quarter 2005 Parkervision earnings conference call. My name is Colby and I will be your coordinator for today. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for todayís call, Mr. Paul Henning. Please proceed, sir.
Paul Henning: Thank you, Colby. Before we get started I want to remind listeners that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements which involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties about our business and the economy and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially different from our expected achievements and anticipated results. Included in these are factors such as the ability to maintain technological advantages in the marketplace, ability to sufficiently increase manufacturing capacity to meet demands, achieving timely market introductions and acceptance of products, maintaining our patent protection and the availability of capital among others. Given these uncertainties and other factors for our business, listeners are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements contained in this conference call. Additional information concerning these and other risks can be found with our filings with the SEC.
On todayís call weíll hear first from Cindy Poehlman, Chief Financial Officer of Parkervision. And then Jeff Parker, the CEO and President of the company, will discuss the business end and the outlook. Let me first turn it over to Cindy. Cindy?
Cindy Poehlman: Thank you, Paul, and thank you for those of you who have joined us this afternoon. As youíre aware, we released our third quarter results this morning. As usual, I will spend just a few minutes highlighting items in the quarterly report and then Iíll turn the call over to our CEO, Jeff Parker, for an update on the business developments. The operating costs for the third quarter as you may have noted were a little over $4 million, and this is the first quarter that reflects operations since our exit from retail in June. As we anticipated, our operating expenses have been reduced by approximately 25% from previous quarters and this is due to the reduced staffing and marketing costs related to retail operations.
At the end of last quarter, we reported to you that we were in the process of working with our channel partners and others to sell our remaining Wi-Fi finished goods and component inventory. We had reduced those inventories to their estimated net realizable values in June. You may have noticed that our revenues from product sales in the third quarter of this year were $430,000 which is higher than our product sales in the first half of 2005. The reason for this increase is largely due to our conservative revenue recognition policies for product in the distribution channel in the past.
As you may recall, we only recognize revenue when weíre able to establish that the retailer has moved the product from their shelf into the consumerís hand. This historically was established through retail sell through reports and in some cases, retail purchase patterns. In the third quarter as a result of terminating our retail distribution agreements, we were able to recognize revenue also based on expiration of the retailer or distributorís right to return products, in addition to those other methods. This resulted in somewhat of a catch-up of revenue recognition for products shipped through the channel.
In addition to the increased product revenue, youíll also notice that weíve reflected positive margins as approximately $91,000 or 21% for the quarter. This is reflective of the mix of sales through retail versus wholesale channels. We had estimated at the end of second quarter when we reduced our inventories that a higher number of these units would be moving through wholesale as opposed to the retail channels. As a result for this quarter we had a higher average selling price than anticipated, resulting in some positive margins.
At the end of the quarter we have approximately $295,000 remaining in deferred revenue on the balance sheet. This reflects all remaining product in the channel. You should expect that over the next quarter or so this deferred revenue will be reduced to 0 as we either recognize revenue based on additional expirations of rights to return and/or possibly refund remaining channel partners for product that they may yet return. Any returned product will be moved through a wholesaler under an agreement thatís already in place. So we have no concerns about any remaining unsold product inventory.
Turning to the balance sheet for just a moment., you can see that our cash and short-term investments are approximately $14.5 million at the end of this quarter. This reflects cash usage of about $4.5 million for the quarter which is exactly in line with our expectations. You may recall from last quarterís conference call that we indicated our third quarter would reflect some negative cash impact from the retail exit, primarily payment of employee severance benefits of nearly $600,000 that were accrued in the second quarter but paid out in the third. Based on our reduced operating expenses, we are comfortable that our cash position will allow us to continue to execute on our business plan. Our first showing in business relationships we believe will largely dictate our future capital needs. And on that note I will turn the call over to our CEO, Jeff Parker to provide an update on our business activities.
Jeff Parker: Well, good afternoon.
And thank you, Cindy. I want to thank everyone for joining us on our call
today. We are speaking from
More importantly, weíre also proceeding on a variety of fronts with top-tier OEMs. Weíve had a number of initial meetings this quarter with prospective OEM partners as well as numerous follow on meetings to continue discussions with others. We continue to have ongoing dialogues with literally every OEM with whom we have met. With several OEMs, our discussions have progressed beyond our technology and its capabilities and to how best to frame an initial business relationship. As you might expect, a business relationship can take different forms. It can involve multiple components depending on the structure and the business objectives of our potential partners. And as in any undertaking, the final elements tend to take the longest. As I stated in my last conference call, my own personal goal has been to close our first OEM agreement by the end of this year.
The balance that we are working to achieve is to provide the best possible position for the first movers without unnecessarily limiting the opportunity that this company has worked so hard to develop. Itís very exciting that weíve evolved our offering to be in a position where we have attracted the attentions of multiple top-tier handset partners. What you should take away is that we are not holding out for the ďperfect dealĒ but we are looking to structure a deal thatís best suited to maximize the opportunity for ParkerVisionís future growth and that is fair and equitable to the first OEM or two. I hope we can achieve those delicate balances yet this year. That still remains our goal.
Our first deal we believe will undoubtedly help drive momentum for additional partnerships which is another reason why itís so important that we donít find ourselves in the situation that we canít fully capitalize on such an important opportunity that this company has worked so hard and so long to create. We understand that weíre in a marathon, not a sprint, and that long-term success in our current and future markets will demand a consistent and thoughtful approach to our business dealings. So I want to take and expand on that a bit by providing some context and perspective on that topic. Thereís three things I would like to expand on in our conversation today. #1, a little bit more about our technology; #2, the markets that it serves; and #3, why we believe itís an idea whose time has absolutely come.
Some of you may have noticed that we recently updated our Web site to better reflect the focus of our company. We have framed our fundamental technology as energy signal processing, or ESP. ESP is the fundamental technology from which our D2D and D2P technologies have evolved -- the umbrella over our technology so to speak. ESP is not an incremental twist on a legacy approach, but rather a total departure that enables a fresh approach for the next generation of wireless digital communication. ESP when used as the basis for the RF transceiver is not bound by the same limitations as the legacy analog approaches that have come before it. To the RF designer that is hindered by the limitations of legacy analog electronics, it will appear that we are ďbreaking the RF rules.Ē It is important for them to understand how our ESP technology will liberate them and their products from some of the boundaries that have been imposed by the century-old analog circuit architectures.
For our OEM prospects, breaking free from the old RF rules means giving up the preconceived notion that certain benefits can only be achieved at the expense of other important features. As example, todayís analog RF technology forces compromises between the quality of the RF signal and the amount of power required for the analog circuits. ESP technology achieves RF signal quality beyond what is practically achievable in analog while using a fraction of the power due to its digital processing architecture. Maintaining quality performance over real-world operating conditions such as temperature ranges, voltage ranges that you will encounter in a batterypowered product, and other conditions in the real world use of a product, is a real challenge for OEMs on both the engineering and the production fronts.
Our ESP technology provides a more stable and predictable RF platform. It helps time-tomarket for designers and reliability for manufacturing. For our current and future investors, itís important to understand the scope of the opportunity that ESP provides. To achieve real adoption by OEMs from a new entrant such as Parkervision, the technology has to provide a quantum leap in important benefits over current solutions that they are using. ESP enables this level of improvements as OEMs endeavor to provide the next generation of products and services. If youíve not done so yet, I encourage you to visit the new ParkerVision web-site, our new campaign is central to the identity and the future of Parkervision. We will be adding a significant amount of content to our web-site the balance of this year. We will explain in more detail how ESP technology liberates product designers from the many tradeoffs that are required using the analog RF architectures of today.
Regarding the markets, frankly, there isnít an application that uses an RF transceiver that cannot benefit from ESP technology. We have initially targeted the 3G cellular market, where the legacy analog transceivers have truly run out of capacity to meet the needs of this next generation application. This market is expected to be one of the fastest growing segments for the foreseeable future with handset shipments for the cellular phone category forecast to grow to 1 billion units shipped per year in the latter part of this decade. 3G is the convergence of voice and data networks that are being deployed now. Its widespread adoption is definitely a question of when, not if. And the speed of adoption and profitability of these networks will be influenced by factors such as long battery life, true broadband connectivity in both directions -from the handset and the base station -- and ubiquitous coverage. Achieving all of these features will have the consumer using a single portable wireless device as a one-stop communicator.
However, there are some important gaps in achieving those goals. And ParkerVisionís ESP technology helps fill those gaps and in no small measure. The effectiveness and application of our technology is not an issue. The market has reached a critical juncture for a number of reasons. #1, successful migration to 3G and beyond will require more robust performance and reliability than is found in todayís analog transceiver architectures; #2, OEMs and network providers alike are seeking the best approach to improving performance, maximizing the services they can provide and gaining a competitive advantage in their market segments. And thirdly, as usage skyrockets, customers are demanding greater functionality, better features and more reliability in their wireless phones. Legacy analog technologies have reached a point of diminishing returns and cannot meet these challenges gracefully, and in many cases, not at all.
We believe meeting these challenges requires breaking the current rules of RF and our ESP technology does just that. We believe weíve reached an inflection point, an inflection point where our technology and expertise can make a fundamental difference in the development of our wireless world. We are truly at the cusp of the next generation of wireless communications but all of us at Parkervision know that success does not come overnight and changing the rules of RF is an ongoing process.
We are proud of our progress, we are focused on our goals and we fully appreciate the many challenges ahead. And now, Iíd like to open this up for questions. So, Colby, if we could begin taking questions that would be great.
Operator: Your first question comes from the line of Scott Robertson with Halpern Capital. Please proceed.
Scott Robertson: Good afternoon, Jeff.
Jeff Parker: Hello, Scott.
Scott Robertson: Just a quick question regarding obviously -- with the new coverage, we put out some of the feedback and not necessarily feedback I agree with, but -- believes youíre holding out the technology or the license of the technology or basically deal with an OEM for the big Tier-1 OEMs, the big deal -- at the expense of maybe thereís some Tier-2s out there that would be willing to go forward today. But youíd want the first mover to be one of these top-tier, huge, PR-machine-type OEMs. If you could just comment on that briefly and then Iíll have one more observation after that.
Jeff Parker: †Okay. Sure. We have been in dialogue with -- of the top 10 handset OEMs, weíre in dialogue with half of those -- maybe -- with some of the more recent additional conversations even a little bit more than that. Scott, and to our audience, we are not holding out our first deal for any particular -- a showcase OEM or a trophy OEM so to speak. Weíre working with the OEMs who we approached first who happened to be Tier 1. They were open to the idea. They were open to looking at the technology and frankly they moved through the process of looking at the technology rapidly and into the business dialogue quickly. And the ones weíve been speaking to the longest which happen to be Tier 1 OEMs have just been the ones that have been moving down the path the fastest.
Would OEMs of maybe smaller companies move more quickly, demand less from our company? We can speculate. I donít know. But weíve been fortunate to have the OEMs that I think the investment community -- if I could put the names out there, which theyíre confidential, I canít. But if you had the names -- and everybody, I think, knows who the top 10 OEMs are in the handset space -- would be excited for us and our ability to build value from those relationships would hope that thatís who we would go after. Certainly the technology is worthy of that type of relationship. And the technology can deliver a lot of benefits to clearly any OEM but including and especially the top ones who are trying to keep and maintain and perhaps some of them, expand their market share.
Scott Robertson: Yes. I agree with that and in fact I often think some of the investors are too focused in on the tier-1s when in the 3G world, I would argue that the top 3 OEMs are not what I would consider the top players in 3G today. They essentially gave that market -- or gave other entrants into that market years ago because they didnít want to play in it because they couldnít do it in volume.
So, just to throw a name out, an NEC, I consider a home-run-type OEM. And certainly they are within the top 10. So Iím glad to hear the full top 10 is being discussed with.
Jeff Parker: We are working the balance between wanting to give the first movers every opportunity and every reason to want to do business with us and to take that step forward with a new entrant on the scene, which is ParkerVision. And yet weíve obviously got to be cautious that we donít provide any features in our agreements that keep us out of the opportunity to do business with others for too long or we will find that we may have made one nice step forward only to be locked out of the bigger market for a time period that could be real minimizing to building the kind of value we can build here.
Scott Robertson: Okay.
Jeff Parker: †I believe reasonable people will come to the right balance. And I believe we will get there.
Scott Robertson: Okay.
Jeff Parker: You have a follow on?
Scott Robertson: One -- yes. Just more of an observation, maybe to try and find a way to address this. As I talk to clients, thereís a group out there that really understands conceptually what the D2P architecture can do today and where itís designed and kind of where itís going. And obviously nobody can look at the patents today because theyíre not public information. But from a conceptual standpoint, to understand what it will do.
And then there just seems to be a gigantic group of investors or interested parties -- even some self-proclaimed RF engineering experts -- who I just donít think understand what the D2P -- IC or D2P semiconductor solution would do. They typically classify it as a power amplifier, totally forgetting the fact that it has the transmitter portion included in it as a single unified operation
and that the roadmap in my opinion will also at some point include full transceiver functionality all bundled together in a single unified operation. And Iím wondering if thereís a way we can more effectively get people to understand that this is not a power amplifier -
Jeff Parker: Right. We -
Scott Robertson: -- itís not -- because they talk about the market size, and yes, power amplifier marketís about $1 billion. And in the future itíll be about $1 billion. And they -- so they say well, thatís a small market when theyíre forgetting the transceiver market has to be included in with that. And if you could do a single unified operation, thatís really where OEMs want to go.
Jeff Parker: Sure. Well, couple of comments on that. First of all, we will be giving a lot of additional information on our Web site over the coming months that will help people get their arms around what is it that we do thatís unique and beneficial and that is not achievable -- at least not in practical terms that weíre aware of† -- by using the old legacy architectures. Iím asked all the time to try to come up with something thatís a good analogy of what weíve developed in this umbrella of ESP.
And the analogy that comes to mind -- I remember the first time that I heard a CD music player, which has DSP -- digital signal processing -- in the bass band audio. And I didnít care what you would spend in money for tape decks or LPs or whatever your medium was of putting music through a speaker, but all the analog processing -- no matter how much money you spent that came before it, always had a certain amount of background noise and hum and hiss. And when you heard your first CD, it was like, wow, listen to that. It sounded like you were there at the symphony. And then of course weíve watched over the years whatís happened with DSPs and their ability to process that type of information in a way that for any money in analog you couldnít come even close to duplicating the experience or the performance. This is what our ESP technology is going to do and is starting to do already for radio transceivers.
Scott Robertson: Okay.
Jeff Parker: So when people figure out how to transform analog functions to digital processed functions, what you can do and the quality you can achieve and the -- kind of the old ďrulesĒ that you can break are significant. And we will be addressing this on our web-site. Weíll be sharing more with people to try to help them get their arms around that. And I guess the only other comment Iíll make is, there are people who are looking at our technology who want to believe and who approach it with the glass is half-full, help me fill it up the rest of the way so I can understand and benefit from hearing what the latest technology advances are. And there are other people who donít want to believe. And frankly, those are people that it doesnít make a difference what we say or what the facts are, theyíre going to come up with their own agendas and thatís fine.
But I can tell you that in the important -- the most important space for the company today -which are the OEMs, the people who write their opinions with checks, cash dollars that come to our coffers -- we have had no pushback. We have had nobody who doesnít want to engage us in some way to try to figure out how they can benefit from this technology. So in that space, which is where weíre spending 99.9% of our time, weíre making great strides. And frankly there arenít enough hours in the day or days in the week to keep up with all of that interest and activity because itís all over the globe. Thatís why weíre excited. Thatís why weíre energized. Thatís why our team is excited, because they see that. And they see that coming from companies who have plenty of people knocking on their door to do business with them. So if they donít see something special with what ParkerVisionís bringing, I assure you, they wouldnít be spending all the time theyíre spending with us. Thanks for your questions. Next question, please.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of John Bucher with Harris Nesbitt. Please proceed.
John Bucher: Yes, John Bucher, Harris Nesbitt. Thank you. Jeffrey, just wondering -- yes, I understand that you have a much more comprehensive architecture that youíre applying here. But do you think that the -- some of the first commercial opportunities might be in the power amplifier space? And could that lead potentially to a more comprehensive adoption? In other words, could the power amplifier be sort of a Trojan horse or do you expect that your first commercial opportunities are going to be a more comprehensive transceiver?
Jeff Parker: No. I -- John, I think thatís a good question. I think youíre correct in your -- what I think your assumption is. Our first opportunities -- the ones weíre working on the most closely right now are in the transmit side. And I think what Scott in the previous question was trying to help people understand is that the transmit side of what we do is all the way from the base band processor function all the way to the antenna. So itís a more comprehensive function than just the power amp and there are a lot of challenges and compromises and engineering difficulties between that base band data and that antenna that makes our D2P function very valuable solution to a lot of OEMs and especially the ones who are trying to do 3G and now theyíre looking at 3 1/2 G and beyond.
But I also would agree that that is an excellent Trojan horse or so far it appears to be an excellent Trojan horse for our receiver technology where people are looking at trying to understand, okay, if you can do this for me on the transmit side by using a digital architecture, what do -- letís go back and take a look at what you guys have been doing on the receive side. And I will tell you, to that end, some of the OEMs who weíve been speaking to have actually taken some of our Wi-Fi products and tested them and studied what their performance results are and who benchmark those against what they consider to be excellent RF analog front ends that we just run rings around in performance have been the most active in saying, well, wait a minute. We donít just want to talk to you about the transmit side, we also want to talk to you about the receive side. And our only caveat to that is that our team is largely focused on the transmit technology and getting that to market and making sure that we satisfy all the momentum weíve built up there. And that the receive side will, in our opinion, come as a commercialization reality for -- at least for the cellular space behind the transmit side.
John Bucher: And any other -- I understand that youíve got to be focused here but any other market opportunities? I mean, clearly the 3G cellular device opportunity is massive, but any other market opportunities that you see?
Jeff Parker: There are and some of those have been brought to our attention through some of the dialogues weíve had with some of these OEMs who have business divisions that are either in complementary spaces or maybe in slightly different spaces but spaces where maybe theyíre trying to borrow components that theyíve used in the past from one application for another. Thereís nothing right now that Iím really ready to talk about because itís a balancing act between making sure we get all the way through the first sales cycle with these first OEMs on what weíve put forth and what theyíve got a strong interest in before we start opening up the opportunities.
But I will say this, there are some fundamental building blocks of our technology that will apply nicely to some other market opportunities and weíre just not quite ready to start talking about those. But there is some very nice synergies between the mobile handset application and some other related and unrelated opportunities that we should be able to leverage this technology into.
John Bucher: Thank you very much.
Jeff Parker: Thank you. Next question, please.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Wilson Jaeggli with Southwell Partners. Please proceed.
Wilson Jaeggli: Hi Jeff. You mentioned here I believe that you have moved beyond the technology consideration in your negotiations with some and youíre trying to claim more framework business relationships. Does that mean in a sense -- I mean, that whoever youíre dealing with here have come to some acceptance of your design?
Jeff Parker: Yes.
Wilson Jaeggli: And -- okay.
Jeff Parker: It does.
Wilson Jaeggli: And -
Jeff Parker: What has happened is we have some demonstration platforms that allow OEMs to drill down into the technology pretty deeply. And of course the chicken and the egg that youíre trying to work as a new entrant into a market is to develop implementations that fit their needs but you of course canít completely finish those implementations off until they give you feedback and you know exactly how they want to use it. So we went in earlier this year explaining that we didnít know if we were too early for them to look at the technology or not but this is what our chicken and egg was, what weíre trying to solve for. And some of the early conversations they were able to see enough technology that they said, okay, weíve seen enough. Weíre ready to talk about how weíd like to apply the technology in our business. And what kind of business relationship we could create.
Wilson Jaeggli: Has anyone built an actual handset -- I mean, in other words, taking it out of the lab as such and then built a handset format and used it (inaudible - cross talk) --?
Jeff Parker: Some of those activities are under way at this time. And Iím not at liberty to go into which standard or which OEM and those specifics. But what they have done is theyíve been able to test the technology on all of the same test gear that they use to test the transmit chains of their existing handsets. And one of the things Iíll be doing at AeA tomorrow is showing many of the printouts from the Agilent test gear thatís used in this industry -- itís not the only brand, but itís majority of it -- that OEMs are looking at -- what are they looking at? Why are they getting excited? What does the traditional transmit chain deliver and why are -- what are we delivering that gets their attention? Weíll be going through that at some of these conferences tomorrow and the next day.
Wilson Jaeggli: Well, good. Iím out
Jeff Parker: Great.
Wilson Jaeggli: The level at which youíre discussing with these OEMs, I mean is this the level of senior management and design that can create a change in their basic cell phone design?
Jeff Parker: Weíve had the good fortune earlier this year of having introductions at some of the OEMs at very senior levels. And so those were decision-makers who were able to kind of rally their troops to take a look at something, drilled down into it relatively quickly and then to start talking to us about how this can benefit them and what kind of business relationship theyíre interested in. I donít know this for a fact but I think some of our early conversations -- at least my suspicion -- and some of the positive results that we had from those stimulated other OEMs to start looking at this in areas where we didnít have perhaps quite the same senior level connections that we had at the first ones. Itís a small, incestuous industry as all of these spaces are. And it seems like everybody kind of knows what most everybody is doing. And so those resulted in us getting invited to come in and demo our technology and some of the other
OEMs. And -- although we didnít have the same senior sponsorship at some of the later ones, we got into dialogues with people who are responsible for whatís the next generation of technology platform going to be for certain handsets and how are they going to build it. And how are they going to integrate it and how are they going to compete against things that are coming on the market. And it started to kind of feed on itself.
And this is why I said in my conversation earlier that the balancing act weíve got is to make sure that whatever we do -- securing and announcing our first one or two relationships will surely help speed up the desire for the next ones to want to get involved in doing relationships with our company as well. And the first one or two are always the most difficult and then once those get done then itís -- everybody wants to be involved. And what we are not wanting to have happen here is that we finally get that opportunity to get people to start adopting this technology and because of some contractual agreements that weíre held away from doing that for some unreasonable time period or some unreasonable condition that doesnít make it viable for other OEM opportunities and we find ourselves pushing away the rest of the industry in a way that we donít think is consistent with building the opportunity that we have in front of us. Iím quite prepared to go toe to toe with anybody to explain why this is a best-in-class technology for where OEMs are going now. And if you really believe you have the best-in-class technology, which this is, then you better figure out a way not just to get it to the first -- or first and second OEMs but beyond that in a way that youíre not going to push them off and prevent yourself from exploring the opportunities.
Wilson Jaeggli: Right. Thatís easy to understand. Well, keep up the good work. Thanks.
Jeff Parker: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Mark Gaskill with MKG Financial Group. Please proceed.
Mark Gaskill: Hey, Jeff.
Jeff Parker: Good afternoon.
Mark Gaskill: Quick question. In talking with the OEMs, are we looking at potential multiple relationships here or are we looking at potentially starting off with a single relationship and some protection for a certain period of time before others would be able to come in? I mean, just -
Jeff Parker: Well, our goal -
Mark Gaskill: -- trying to get an idea on the pace in terms of what we might be looking at.
Jeff Parker: Right. Our goal is to be able to have the technology adopted by multiple OEMs at a reasonable pace. The chicken and the egg that you work through is -- obviously the first mover or the first mover or two feel theyíre taking the most risk and that theyíre going to be working the most closely with the company to make sure that we understand their needs which are going to resemble their competitorsí needs an awful lot. And that thereís some benefit for that. And so weíre trying to work through how to make that benefit available but not in a time frame that -- keeping us -- or not with the feature that would keep us away from allowing others to adopt relatively shortly thereafter. And we think we have some good ideas on how to make a balanced, win-win situation for that need. But as Iíve told people before thereís two signatures at the bottom of the page and I only control one. So weíre doing the best we can.
The best I can tell you is the dialogues are very active and there certainly seems to be activity that indicate people really want to make it work. They want to find the relationship and they want -- and they understand this is not a one-trick pony ParkerVision. This technology of ours, which is a great solution for what people need to do in terms of efficiency increases and smaller form factors and multi-modes of operation in 3G. I mean, if people like it for 3G, theyíre going to like it even more for 3 1/2. And even more for 4G and again, at AeA conferences tomorrow and the next day, weíll explain more of that but in a nutshell, all these cellular generations that are coming on the market and beyond, theyíre trying to pack more users and more data rates to sell more features, and to do that, these analog circuits are becoming more and more inefficient. And the more data, the more densely the spectrum is trying to be used, the higher the peak to average power ratio is to these RF wave forms, which is what the result is of more data, the better Parkervision looks.
So, the balance is that I think people are trying to find great deals for themselves to start with, which I donít blame them, but also I think they believe -- and I hope they believe that this isnít going to be the first -- the only relationship with our company. We think thereíll be many iterations of this technology and many forms of this technology that will have long enduring relationships. And so hopefully we can find a good start to these relationships thatíll also lead to many follow-on opportunities.
Mark Gaskill: Are you -- on the other side of that story, are you finding that some are somewhat concerned that theyíve looked at the technology, they like what they see, and obviously if someone else picks it up -- a competitor, that obviously if it works over there, theyíre going to want it to work for themselves as well?
Jeff Parker: Thatís our goal. Thatís our goal. Our goal is to -- well, itís -- I think I understand your question. Is your question --?
Mark Gaskill: The chicken or the egg as you were saying. I mean -- in other words, I like the technology. I canít quite figure out how to make it work but if one of my competitors comes in and they can figure out how to make it work then that may give them the leg up. And we all know what that -- what the industry looks like.
Jeff Parker: Sure. (inaudible - cross talk).
Mark Gaskill: I donít want Verizon having it over here and Qualcomm not having it over there, et cetera, et cetera.
Jeff Parker: Right. Right. No, itís a somewhat multi-dimensional issue to deal with but I donít believe that -- we wonít be the first company to have figured out how to get through that.
Mark Gaskill: Sure.
Jeff Parker: Other companies have gotten through it. Weíll get through it. I mean, to be frank with you, if we werenít operating in a public company environment and someone said to me, hey, how is the momentum going along? Iíd say, I couldnít be happier. We are operating in a public company environment. Iíve made the statement my goal is to close these first -- this first one before the end of the year. Itís still my goal. Donít know if weíll get there but thatís my goal. And so it puts a little bit of an unnatural mist frankly on some of the negotiation that weíre doing. But thatís okay. The public company environment has also been very good to helping keep this company funded and giving us the opportunity to do what weíve done. So, itís a balance in life.
Mark Gaskill: And the key is you canít be happier, right?
Jeff Parker: Weíre very -- we have -- every OEM we have approached with this piece of technology without exception has engaged us in an active dialogue. Some are still looking at the technology. Some are still drilling down deeper. But a number of them are not.
And I can tell you thatís a very different experience than we had when we first tried to roll out our D to D, where people took a look at it and said, eh, it doesnít quite fit my needs right now. So I couldnít be happier. I think weíre being given the opportunity to succeed.
Mark Gaskill: Okay, thanks, Jeff.
Jeff Parker: Thank you.
Operator: Your final question comes from the line of Scott Robertson, Halpern Capital - Analyst. Please proceed.
Scott Robertson: Hey, Jeff, just one quick follow-up. Clearly you have a dedicated effort on these top OEMs on the wireless handsets base and then probably also have some dialogue on the Wi-Fi side but Iím wondering how much or if you plan to put any push into the wireless network operator side. Because my experience with the wireless industry over the last seven or eight years, I watched NTT Dokomo (ph) have an advanced amount of influence on how NEC, companies like Sharp, design their handsets. They told them what they wanted and those companies responded by giving them what NTT asked for. And then NTT of course sells them through their network and services. And I just believe that the operators have massive influence with what gets built. Also on the base station side, which quite honestly is I think a market for the future.
Jeff Parker: Well, Scott, itís funny you should mention that. And Iím not -- there isnít a lot of detail I can give, but I will tell you that we have had some others also think that this company is now ready to have dialogues and presentations and explanations to network providers. I do believe that before too much more time goes on, those conversations will be added to the ones weíre having with OEMs. And I also think that the timing is good because today we have a lot we can share with network providers about how we can really help many of the goals that theyíre trying to achieve, whether itís better mobile equipment that theyíre selling and why itís better. Whether itís higher data rates from the handset back to the base, whether itís battery life, whether longer-term, when they want to look at our receiver technology we can give them fewer dropped calls, better handoffs. There is a lot for us to talk to a network provider about. And we will likely start those dialogues in the very near future. Okay, yes, thank you.
Scott Robertson: Thatís great.
Jeff Parker: Thatís a great question and that is a very good place for us to also be exposing or promoting our technology. Well, I appreciate everybody taking the time who was on this call today to hear an update on our company. I look forward to seeing many of you at AeA tomorrow and the next day. And please, again, keep an eye on our Web site as youíll see much more information that will be added between now and the end of the year that I hope will continue to give you a lot of good insight into why we have a best-in-class technology and how we intend to make shareholder value out of that technology. And I wish you a good evening. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.
Operator: Thank you for your participation in todayís conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Good day.