Jeff Parker's OEM Preannouncements

warning: Parameter 1 to theme_field() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/www/users/pvnotes/includes/theme.inc on line 170.
Related Terms:

From the ParkerVision Q3 2006 Earnings Call (Nov 2, 2006)
http://pvnotes.com/calls/PRKR%202006.11.02%202006Q3.html



Michael Donahue:
Would it be fair to say that you guys are in the final stages of negotiations with as many as - or is up to three major cell phone OEMs?

Jeff Parker: It would be fair to say we are in the - we believe to be in the final stages of negotiations with several - I don’t want to really go into the specific number, but certainly more than one. And cell phone OEMs are part of the mix of OEMs we are talking to, but as you know, there is actually other types of OEMs as well that we are in dialog with, some are chip providers of various nature.

 

From the ParkerVision 2006 AeA Conference (Nov 11, 2006)
http://pvnotes.com/calls/PRKR%202006.11.08%202006%20AEA.html

Jeff Parker:  OK, I'll repeat your question just because we're webcasting but the question is, we see that you're targeted with tier one OEMs, is there any progress for targeting at the smaller second or third tier OEMs?

Right now our focus truly is exclusively in tier one and what we said was as long as we see progress at a rate that makes sense and we don't see people dropping out of the race to get to or out of the goal that starts without the technology, we'll take our limited resources and absorb them on that front.

Jeff Parker:  Right, so a follow‑up question, right so a follow‑up question you have is, couldn't a tier two or three company get to market faster?

You know I'm not convinced of that for two reasons: number one is what I just mentioned, the ability to hold the content in your phone in terms of baseband processors and such will enable adoption of technology much quicker than if you've got to try and work amongst multiple kind of unrelated parties.

The second thing that we were seeing with some of these Tier One OEM conversations is although we may do an agreement, a contract, with a company, and look at that as one design whim. I believe what you'll actually see is within that agreement, within that company, there may actually be multiple customers, multiple constituents.

And that's been true of recent conversations where companies have said to us, "Hey when we get to the finish line of an agreement and we can launch product development activities together, are you guys ready to support possibly two or three possible initiatives?" One initiative being maybe less optimization but quicker to market and other initiatives being we want to squeeze every penny out that we can from your technology and it's OK if it takes longer to get it into product.

So I think you're going to see that with multiple customers who will run parallel tracks to take advantage of this technology in different ways. So I'm not...I don't think it's necessarily a truism that a smaller tier two or three company can get to market with this technology faster, caveat being that tier one companies are hard to get going, right it takes a lot of time to get everybody in the organization who has to make a decision to go forward.

But the reason you heard us very encouraged in our last conference call and the reason is we're seeing that momentum with some of these tier one OEMs now; where they have had all of the decision makers come to the conclusion, "yes this is what we want to do, " and are moving forward to go figure out how to do that.

 


From ParkerVision 2006 Q4 Conference Call (Mar 8, 2007)
http://pvnotes.com/calls/PRKR%202007.03.08%202006Q4.html

Jeff Parker: We continue to have a flurry of activity ongoing with numerous target customers and although I can’t go into the specifics of those activities, I can say that we remain highly confident that our first design wins will become a reality in the near-term. We indicated in the last call that we are at what we consider to be the final stage of the sales cycle with more than one target customer. Some of you might be asking, “If you are at the final stages, what is taking so long to consummate a deal? And I would like to address that question.

Ivan Nathan: How are you, Jeff, good afternoon. In the beginning of your statement, you used the term near-term. If you are able to, how do you define near-term?

Jeffrey Parker: Well, I would have the good question. You know, near-term - look, if we, I in particular, would love to be able to just point a date, like this is the date by which we are going to have this thing done. Unfortunately, we only control, you know, one side of the negotiation, and there have got to be two pens on the agreement, we only control one pen. But the reason I consider near-term to be an appropriate statement is because several of the OEMs we are negotiating with have moved through so much of  -- there is so much agreement between us that even though these companies still, you know, move at their own pace, they are still, you know, multiple voices within these companies that are involved, you know, these are big tier 1 companies, so you are not dealing with an individual. We see a pretty clear path to getting, you know, getting the stuff done in what we consider to be the near-term. When I said in my comments that, you know, I hope -- my greatest hope was that we, you know, have another conference call sooner than later, it was to express that. You know, obviously, we will have to have another conference call with our first quarter earnings. So, you know, with maybe a little luck and a little good, you know, events coming together maybe we will have to have one of those before then, that’s how I would define near-term.

Ivan Nathan: Yeah, okay. In other words, you would in your own mind, you would think of a period of less than six months?

Jeffrey Parker: Oh, yeah, certainly.

 

On May 2, 2007 ParkerVision announced a deal with ITT, a defense contractor.