ParkerVision Q2 2006
Earnings Call
Aug. 8, 2006
Paul Henning, Cameron
Associates
Cynthia Poehlman, Chief
Financial Officer
Jeffrey L. Parker,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Michael Donahue with
Emerging Growth Equity
Morgan Payne of Smith
Barney
Chris Johnson a private
investor
Bob Berlacher a private
investor
Joe Green - a private
investor
Operator: Please standby. We are
about to begin and we do thank you for standing by and welcome to today’s
ParkerVision Incorporated Second Quarter 2006 Earnings Release Conference Call.
This call is being recorded. Now at this time I would like to turn the
conference over to Paul Henning with Cameron Associates. Mr. Henning please go
ahead.
Paul Henning: Thank you, Dwayne.
Before we get started I want to remind listeners that this conference call will
contain forward-looking statements which involve known and unknown and
uncertainties about our business and the economy and other factors that may
cause actual results to differ materially from our expected achievements and
anticipated results. Included in these risks are factors such as the ability to
maintain technological advantages in the marketplace but sufficiently increase
manufacturing capacity to meet demand, to achieve timely market introduction
and acceptance of our products, maintain credit patent protection and the
availability of capital among others. Given these uncertainties and other
various factors about our business, listeners are cautioned not to place undue
reliance on any forward-lookingstatements contained in this conference call.
Additional information concerning these and other risk will be
found in our filings with the SEC. We will begin today with Cynthia Poehlman,
CFO who will review the quarter’s financials and followed by Jeff Parker the
Chief Executive Officer will report on the company’s business activities. Cindy,
would you like to take it?
Cynthia Poehlman: Thank you, Paul and
welcome to the ParkerVision’s second quarter conference call. As you likely
noted in our financial release this morning ParkerVision’s net loss for the
second quarter was 4.3 million or $0.18 per share compared to 10.2 million or
$0.49 per share for the same period last year. This represents the decrease in
the net loss of 5.9 million or nearly
60%. Similarly the year-to-date net loss of
8.7 million or $0.38 per share represents a 7 million or nearly 50% drop
from year-to-date results for 2005. This decrease is due to cost savings
resulting from our decision to streamline our operations and focus on OEM
opportunities for our technology coupled with one time charges related to the
retail access which we incurred in the second quarter of last year.
Over the last 12 quarters, the company’s net loss has averaged 4
million per quarter, which includes an average of a half a million per quarter
of non-cash stock compensation expense. What this translated into is a
significant reduction in cash usage over the past year. Cash use for operating
and investing activities combined has averaged 3.4 million per quarter over the
last 4 quarters and only 3 million per quarter for the last 2 quarters. The
balance sheet is an important indicator for a pre-revenue company and with 20.7
million in cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet and a much reduced
rate of cash usage, we feel confident that our financial position is one that
will continue to support our OEM negotiation.
I am happy to address any specific questions you might have
regarding our financial results at the end of the call today. And in the mean
time I would like to turn things over to Jeff Parker, our CEO for an update on
business activities.
Jeff Parker: Okay and thank you
Cindy. Good afternoon every one and thank you for joining us on this afternoon
conference call. The challenge in preparing remarks for today’s call has been
to strike the balance between what I would love to share with each and every
one of you regarding the progress we have made with OEM’s since our last call,
against what’s appropriate that we can’t share, given that our dialogues are
confidential with OEM’s and are as yet still a working process. For starters, I
want you to understand that every Tier 1, OEM dialogue that we have been
engaged in, is still a working process meaning that nobody has told us that
they are not interested in pursuing a meaningful discussion on how their
company might adopt our D2D technology. Translated this means that we continue
to make progress with all our target customers, albeit at a different pace
depending on which company.
Last quarter I had stated that the time will take to bring these
discussions to actual design wins that far outweigh the time it is taking to
get that first win. I continue to stand by that view which I am reasonably
certain must bring the question to your mind, Jeff why is getting the deal
finalized, taking the length of time that it’s taking? What progress over the
past quarter can you share with us? How can we as shareholders gauge progress
and the probability of finalizing agreements with some of these OEMs?
First, let me say that while negotiations are at process, they are
different with every potential partner and many of the steps move at a pace
that is not totally with in our control. Many of you have asked; Are we past
the half trademark? Are we at 90%? Many try to analogize what we are doing to a
sporting event. I wish it were as simple looking at a score board and seeing we
are at against game clock. But that’s not a really a good analogy in my
opinion. Our success will only be judged by the successful completion of the
agreements, contracts and the like. So what I can ensure today perhaps anecdotally
is to provide you a sense of why we believe, we are continuing to make very
good progress towards the completion of agreements with OEMs to begin using D2D
within new product lines.
Let’s take a review through the following four categories;
Number 1, what number of prospective customers have we been in
discussion with and what is that number today? And at what level are we
speaking to these customers? Number 2, how have our discussions advanced since
our last conference call? Number 3, what scope of opportunities or usage are we
dealing with here? And Number 4, how does our financial vision support this
endeavor?
So let’s do the analysis to the extent that we can, ensuring the
type of information with you: So number one, regarding prospective customers. I
have explained in past calls, our targeted customers are Tier 1, handset OEM’s
and some of the Tier 1 semiconductor companies that provide these OEMs with
their components. They represent over 70% of handset shipments and this hasn’t
changed. In essence, every one that we have been in dialogue with continues to
progress, albeit some faster, some slower. I believe that some will emerge as
leaders and we will be rewarded for so doing. And some will emerge thereafter
and that’s more within their comfort level, and we want to serve each and every
one of these opportunities. We recently have also had contact with a couple of
additional OEMs who represent an opportunity to expand our dialogues even
further. Some of this is occurring through our own initiative and some through
the initiatives of these companies who have proactively contacted us. This is
very encouraging, because the list of those that are interested in what we
develop continues to expand, not shrink.
I also want you to understand that we are not diluting our efforts
with some of this expansion of conversations, because we are staying within our
focus on basically the same applications with our mobile phone handsets and
their various standards.
The unique multimode capability of our technology is of course
very helpful in balancing the objectives of an expanding audience of interest.
We are not diluting our efforts. I am often asked at what level within OEMs is
our dialogue and visibility within those OEMs. And frankly it varies all over the
place. At some OEMs we have the good fortune of having introduction in their
firm at very senior management levels and the conversation and due diligence is
being conducted at the request of these senior managers. Within other OEMs we
enter dialogue through more mid level management that is taxed with looking at
emerging technologies and then making recommendations to more strategic senior
managers. At many OEMs, we have developed good visibility in both mid and
senior management, which is important since a decision to adopt our technology
will have likely have both strategic as well as tactical implications for an
OEM. We definitely have good visibility within quite a few OEMS at the level of
key decision makers.
While I am not quiet ready to lay claim that ParkerVision is now
household name with in all these OEMs, I think it’s safe to say that if the
OEMs were engaged with, that we are well known at the places that make these
kinds of adoption decisions.
Number 2, regarding our discussions and how they have advanced
since our last call. Our discussions since our last update have progressed
significantly with some of these OEMs and that’s a level of confidential
information that has been exchanged has grown. It has grown and that our while
company has been sharing some of our confidential information with OEMs, so
that if they can judge our technology the reciprocal of this have also started
to occur, and several OEMs have had us enter into agreements whereby they have
now started to share with us some of their confidential information such as
internally developed technologies as well product roadmaps.
We believe this is a very good indicator of expressions of real
interest and that OEMs certainly don’t need to share their valuable
confidential information with us just as an exercise. This enables both parties
to get into much deeper levels of meaningful dialogue and also demonstrate that
some OEMs have become comfortable enough with us and the potential of our
technology to take this step forward. Since many of these OEMs see new ideas
come and new ideas go, we find this to be a very meaningful step forward. Some
OEMs have also made visits to our facilities to conduct audits on areas better
important to them and generally speaking is a multiple time leadings with
lengthy and somewhat formal agendas. Some OEMs scheduling returned it and
hopefully these return in to a type of visit that will associated with the
initial adoption of our technology into some of their products. Again we don’t
believe these investments have turn with us or just being done as an exercise
but rather we believe these are the result of serious interest.
Many of our visitors come from very long distances and while we
appreciate their efforts we also interpret this as the necessary steps along
the way towards securing a relationship with them. The proposal in related
technology evaluations are still the foundation from what’s all our
conversation are based and we have not had OEMs tell us that the type of
relationship we proposed is out of sync with what they are interested in.
I am sure kind of you are wondering. So what we believe is a
roadmap and where we are in these various proposals towards it take to get
concrete deals. This is a challenging topic to discuss with you in any real
detail because even though the confidential information for each prospective
customer. However maybe what I can share with you and it will be helpful
is to explain that from many these OEMs our accomplishment has
opened up a number of considerations that these companies haven’t had to
consider before us. And what I mean by that is that the general transceiver and
teleamplifier architecture has been the same for so long that the way in which
these result haven’t been challenged in any meaningful way for quite some time.
OEM’s find themselves with a very enticing technology opportunity
in D2P; however, they also have to do the analysis as to how this impacts areas
within their firm and other relationships they have. Some of which, we probably
don’t even know about. This is why adoption is a process, and one that requires
that while we in still a sense of urgency, we are also subject to reality of
the different factors that they have to deal with internally.
Regarding the stock of opportunities our focus with OEM’s remains
on 3G cell phone standards and beyond. Over the last quarter, we have started
to demonstrate, if they request, some of the emerging 4G cell phone standards
that are based on the more complex OFDM waveforms that are becoming pretty obvious,
will emerge in coming years in 4G platforms. Just as with 3G or 3.5G or 3.9G,
we are showing OEM’s that D2P has meaningful benefits in efficiency, size and
cost and performance.
In fact, what we have shown is that from a chip that was originally
designed to demonstrate CDMA, Wi band CDMA, GSM and EDGE, we have now also
shown HSUPA which is 3.9G, as well as certain, OFDM modulation which is likely
to be used for 4G. These are all virtually running from the same circuits on
our IC, not through redundant tags on some chip. This true multimode, highly
efficient operation is likely to be the intermodal that launches D2P in
handsets.
So while OEM’s continue to look at D2Ps for meeting their current
needs, and some are even looking at using this for some of the last generation
standards, it is also important to note that many of these OEMs are analyzing
how our technologies meets the future needs which indicates to us that they
view our technology as a long-term keeper.
On the last topic, I will comment on before we open up this call
for your questions. It’s just an observation I would like to make regarding our
vision for our future. While we spend a lot of time discussing the detail of
our technical vision represented through our inventions, product
demonstrations, intellectual property and the like I also want you to know that
we have a financial vision that is no less important. That we use a Tier 1 cash
in first 6 months of this year compared to the same period of last year is no
accident and requires a lot of planning, lot of hard work, tough decisions to
balance how we move our technology advances forward at a good pace and yet make
sure our financial underpinnings are complementary to the vision of what we
believe and what ParkerVision is to become.
We knew that satisfying the due diligence of Tier 1 OEMs who build
literally hundreds of millions of complex wireless devices each year would not
be a trivial thing, but would also be worth all the effort, the time and the
investments. We also know the extent of our financial vision is in the step of
our technical vision that this is good for both our OEM customers and our
shareholders. Our financial vision is to emerge as the quality IT technology
provider choice for the next generation transceiver technology to OEMs will
need to embrace in order to achieve many of their own goals. And to be in a
position that has just occurred, it will occur in a way that will ultimately
build significant shareholders value longer term.
So I hope that this update has been helpful to you. Nobody more
than I are looking forward to bringing in the news of when we consummate our
first OEM agreement and beyond, of course that will lead to an entirely new set
of questions you will have, but those will be a high class set of questions to
answer. In the mean time and on behalf our entire team of smart and dedicated
hardworking engineers, scientists, business and support personnel, thank you
for your continued support of our vision. I know that in times, when the
markets in general are stressed for a variety of reasons outside any of our
control that just makes it even more nerve racking than normal. However, we are
making measurable progress towards our goal of securing business relationships
with Tier 1 OEMs. We appreciate and need your support, and we look forward to
when we can share progress that is less anecdotal and more material. And so
Operator: And we will first go
to, Michael Donahue with Emerging Growth Equity.
Michael Donahue: Hi guys.
Jeffrey Parker: Hi Michael.
Michael Donahue: I guess the big
question is if nothing has changed fundamentally at the company, and things are
only progressing. What do you think the rationale in the market is that your
value has been so dramatically cut down in the last 3 months?
Jeffrey Parker: Well, you know Michael.
I almost rather not make any concrete comments on what price our stock trades
at because I think it’s a factor of a lot of conditions, that are a way out -
quiet of our control, you know what impacts our investors and other pieces of
their portfolio, what is going in the market in general, may be people are
viewing. Some people may view what we are taking to do - is taking longer than
that we hoped and I think it’s a whole likely a whole combination of things. I
can tell my own - for 1K portfolio doesn’t look so great right now and this is
build quite as of some pretty solid companies with track record of earnings
history. So I don’t know, I think everybody has their own take on it.
Michael Donahue: All right, just the
question I get or the concern is that people think that there has to be
something wrong if the stock keeps going down. I mean I understand that the
sector has been down and the market has been down. Can you reassure us that
there is nothing going on fundamentally that is affecting the stock price?
Jeffrey Parker: There is nothing
fundamentally, that’s going on that I am aware of and I can tell you that from
a technology perspective our ability to address the kinds of things oriented as
for is truly stunning. I mean when I mentioned that we have started to show our
OFDM as the same chip, that may or may not resonate with our listeners as being
big deal or not. I can tell you if you are trying to do that through a
traditional transmitter peer architecture and some walked in and said hey
that’s a nice wideband CDMA transmitter peer you got there, now show me OFDM to
4G it’s a great, that’s a whole new design a whole new set of everything come
back in a year. So you know OEMs have continued to stretch and push out and we
responded in my opinion in way I think quite surprising even to them. But
nonetheless on the flip side, we are going to disrupt the way a number of things
that has been done for a while and I am fairly certain that some of what taking
them sometime to sort through, when they adopt, how they will adopt, what
impact that will have and frankly somehow we have been told as that no
Transceiver Flash PA technology have ever got this far and their due diligence
they wanted to maybe source it as a piece of IT. So that emerges like a valves,
we are in new territory with you guys and that’s just, it just takes longer.
Michael Donahue: All right, great.
Jeffrey Parker: Thanks for your
questions. Next question in the line.
Operator: Next question is Morgan
Payne of Smith Barney.
Morgan Payne: Hey Jeff, I was just
wondering about the wireless carriers and you had anymore context with them and
it seems to me what you said while ago that if you can factor older
technologies that the carriers would be, would really be well off because it
seems to be, I would say infrastructure cost of the carriers?
Jeffrey Parker: Yeah, Morgan now that’s
a great question. We have just in the last couple of months put together and
started to rollout a whole carrier marketing and sales program. We didn’t want
to do it before we felt we would better talks to it been. I mean we have our
OEM targets. We want to make sure we can deal with their needs and be
responsive and we have been adding some capabilities to the company that have
quite a bit of experience in working with an approaching carriers and as the
year goes by, we intend to be in dialogue with a number of carriers, we have
already started book one and the response we got from our first meeting was
very positive and we have been invited back and in fact we have been invited
under confidentiality to start - exchange more information in both directions.
So that has become an important part of our marketing and sales approach
albeit, carriers will take longer I think to react and respond typically, the
telecom group does from the infrastructure side. But they can certainly be
highly influential to all the companies we are talking to and so we are not
unappreciative of what we think could be achieved in some efforts that’s why we
are definitely in the process of rolling that out.
Morgan Payne: And there is a common
contact between some of the OEMs and the carriers you are talking about?
Jeffrey Parker: Oh, Absolutely. Look
OEMs and ParkerVision we are all working really with same customer. The
customers really is the carrier right, the carrier owns network. So that’s we
are all ultimately really working in the future.
Morgan Payne: Okay. Thank you.
Jeffrey Parker: Thank you.
Operator: We have a question from
Chris Johnson, a private investor.
Chris Johnson: Jeff, are you intending
in the future ever to sell your chip through distribution or how it’s going to
be direct tele impact sales?
Jeffrey Parker: Chris at this time, our
conversations are really-really heavily weighted toward people wanting to use
our technology in an IT licensing model and that’s I wouldn’t, I don’t say what
that means will never sell ICs but at this time I think in the foreseeable
future this really will deliver the technology through how OEMs want sources it
within their own chips or within semiconductor companies who will fab those
pieces of our IT blocks for them. So and that frankly allow the company of our
size to focus and I think be highly effective and this is one of the reasons I
think we have been able to so responsible that they keep pushing, testing us
and challenging us and they see real responsive answers. Because we really I
mean just are very narrowly focused on the business model, on the applications,
on the customer base and I think that’s going to short and mid-term be a big
benefit for us and we will launch our company and we are very well hoping it
getting launched.
Chris Johnson: In the past conference
calls you had spoken about supporting the DGRS standards. Is that something
that the company is really interested in or is that sort of ..
Jeffrey Parker: Some of them are, some
of them are interested and frankly some interested and some of them have their
own proprietary interfaces and really aren’t particularly concerned one way or
the other about industry interfaces. What’s nice about our technology is it’s
frankly doesn’t really any difference. This technology doesn’t care how yet the
INQ data that every base 10 processor generates, it just needs to be delivered,
so that’s - I don’t want to trivialize it but it’s that’s more just really kind
of a - that’s not a gating factor to have some more about that technology.
Chris Johnson: Is anybody considering
a more integrated solution with the receiver and the transmitter, or everybody
still looking at the PA type stuff at this point?
Jeffrey Parker: No it’s all over the
board and I think that’s what, and I guess some of what’s taking time is
different OEMs have different vision to how they pass the technology and where
they park different building blocks. And we have got into extremely detailed
dialogue with a number of them now about different the options of what they can
do and I think they are weighing some of that against time in the market, against
different standards, against different supplier arrangements they have got. I
mean it’s a - the good news about our technology is it’s very flexible and it
has a lot of different opportunities for how you use it. The flip side of that
of course is that it does expand the due diligence to a pretty VP metrics but
again because we are very focused on the IT model we have been able to be very
responsive to the conversation, they have been moving along at, quite a quick -
I mean I have just looked at the amount of paper in terms of trees that we
killed in the entire logs from the beginning of the last quarter to the ends,
its significantly different. I mean we’ve been exchanging that kind of data and
I genuinely believe that’s going to lead us to conclusions here and the not too
distant future of some of these OEM’s.
Chris Johnson: I noticed in a patent
you were granted recently, it was about using your chips for the phase and
antenna type systems, is that something that you just patent because you happen
to point it or is that something you are intending to pursue.
Jeffrey Parker: Right now, that is
something we have patented because of the wonderful phase accuracy of our D2D
technology and we didn’t want to loose the opportunity for that somewhere down
the road. But its not part of out active discussions right now.
Chris Johnson: All right, thank you
very much.
Jeffrey Parker: Okay, thank you.
Operator: Our next question is
from Bob Berlacher a private investor as well.
Bob Berlacher: Hi Jeff.
Jeffrey Parker: Hi Bob.
Bob Berlacher: Quick question for you.
In the last conference call you spoke only about really as I recall of 3G
technology. You have now got into the mix kind of 4G technology and I am trying to get an idea,
is that what really is potentially delaying any kind of an agreement within OEM
at this point? That any or all of them are now requesting additional rich
testing or verification of your 4G or just seems obviously I think, everybody
whose been a share holder for the last year or longer is some what frustrated
by the pace as I am sure you are?
Jeffrey Parker: Yes.
Bob Berlacher: And I am just wondering
now, with the introduction, of your 4G technology, if that’s going to just
prolong potential pain that we are all going through right now?
Jeffrey Parker: I, I don’t, put it this
way. There is a number of items that they have rolled out in their due
diligence that it’s been a little surprising to us although I have said we have
been responsive because I think we have to. I mean they are the customers.
Bob Berlacher: But when you say they,
there are they multiple OEMs that are now requesting 4G or is it?
Jeffrey Parker: No there are, and in
tell you what I think personally drives it I don’t think that they are trying
delay anything. I think it’s more a function of it, if you look at the space
and you look at the carriers now the carriers really drive the OEMs and 4G has
been kind of the discussion topic for the last couple of years. But it’s
interesting at recent, it’s started to become more of a fact that it’s going to
roll out, it’s going to be OFDM there is still some arguments about which
flavor OFDM but even that’s beginning to narrow pretty rapidly. But what you
see I believe are OEMs saying oh boy OFDM it’s now something we are going to
have to jump on sooner than later. We are in the middle of dialogue with
ParkerVision, I wonder how that could help us and I wouldn’t say that we are in
4G demo dialogue with every OEMs but it is kind of interesting that it will
start with one and within literally just weeks kind of assume to ripple through
and all that certain we are in dialogue with 3 or 4 about the same topics. But
I personally think that’s more carrier driven than anything.
Bob Berlacher: But as what you are
saying that is partially delaying any kind of ?
Jeffrey Parker: I think its part, I
think its part of the due diligence and our job here Bob and you are not on
wrong road a little frustrated but again respectful. Our job is to start and
continue to kind of the sense of urgency and let me say this, I think it will I
hope this will play out this way. Just as in a due diligence process we see an
OEM kind of start down the path and then several others will start down the same
path. I think once we reach that threshold, that tipping point, where adoption
starts I think we will finally out to see, and want to be just for NOEM. I
think that you will see that it would be a number of them. So there is no
question that it’s taken from time but I do believe when we look back on it,
then you will say you know it was frustrating but it was worth it.
I chanced to look at other executives in IT firms who licensed
technology, I have had in-depth dialogue and had a little bit access to some of
these guys. These are very successful companies and they all spoke of the same
thing, if you are - real harder it will take longer than you thought, it will
be difficult but if you have a compelling technology which we do you will
ultimately win the day and you just have to stay with it and you got to keep at
it because eventually the crack and dam will open for you. And I do believe
that will happen for ParkerVision.
Bob Berlacher: Can you give us any
kind of timetable at this point either most conservative or just give us some
kind of expectation of what Jeff Parker’s belief is, when he might be able to
get something done?
Jeffrey Parker: Well in the Q, that we
just issued last night I was willing to find my name that we expect to
consummate initial relationships in 2006 and I still feel and I can tell you it
wasn’t, meaning later we were making statement decision, I sat with our sales
team and our marketing team and engineering team and I said this is where I
might find my name to, you guys think I am crazy and they realized no you are
not crazy, this is moving along and we do think we can these things going this
year. So that’s how we feel in the company.
Bob Berlacher: Okay. Thank you.
Operator: Just signaled on Joe
Green - a private investor.
Joe Green: Hey Jeff its Joe.
Jeff Parker: Hello Joe.
Joe Green: Hey, just a quick
question, I mean seems to that expense going ahead and make a pretty
significant investment in 4G related wireless WiMAX, do you had conversations
during WiMAX and some of the technologies in these OEMS?
Jeffrey Parker: Yes we have.
Joe Green: I mean we haven’t heard
you talk about them in the past?
Jeffrey Parker: Well and the answer is;
The reason I am not spending a lot of time telling all the technical advances
that we have made, though there has gracious plenty of them over the last
couple of quarters, I really don’t think, and maybe I am short changing, but I
don’t think that’s what our investors can sit and wait to hear. I think you
guys want to hear the deals are done and I can appreciate that. But we have had
a number of OEMs respond, as I said earlier, to I think carriers are starting
to push, which is that our OFDM and WiMAX is a one flavor of that is going to
be office and I can tell you that if they don’t like the efficiency for a
color, for power amplifiers and transmitters and Wi band CDMA, they are going
to hate the efficiency on OFDM based standard like WiMAX, I mean just to give
an example of the efficiency; Let’s say the mean power level in Wi band CDMA is
running in that 8-9% today which is what is running, which is not very good for
a transmitter and a power amplifier combination WiMAX you are going to see,
it’s going to be likely in that 2-3-4% range if they are lucky.
So we had OEMs review our OFDM capabilities and some of them take
efficiency numbers right off of the equipment that was measuring our chips that
I have got real big because the efficiencies are on the double-digit and I am
not right to publish what that is right now, but its very good. And the way
phone quality was exceptional, so they were able to check the box and there is
no reason that technology doesn’t extend right after 4G and again, I don’t
think that OEMs looking at that is, is any kind of a tactic, of perks for them.
I think its just a natural response of it is that you have got, we are going to
put money and time and resources in the ParkerVision and their IP on, how far
is it going to take us. At this point we haven’t been able to find a limitation
for many things like that just to show them. So that, that’s something a very
good news. You know, since you got any start on the technical front, I will
just let out one other thing, which I think is, frankly a hell of an
achievement. We have also started to show OEM’s that our latest chips have
achieved a full power control for things like Wi band CDMA and CDMA which is
ADDB in a monolithic chip and there is nothing on the face of the planet that I
am aware of that can do that.
Today to get power control from full power, down ADDB which is
what you have to do to meet the standards, it requires multiple chips for you
to achieve that with multiple places, some of it’s with powering and some of it
is done with the transmitter, some of it is done with attenuators, it’s a
pretty messy kind of an affair. We predicted OEMs earlier this year, we could
do that monolithically and we have done it, and no body that I know who has
done that. So, the technology is not holding us back, I believe it’s just a
process of adoption and getting through these dialogues and we will get through
these dialogues.
Joe Green: Thanks.
Jeffrey Parker: Thanks Jim.
Operator: And with that there are
no further questions, and I’d like to turn the conference back to you, for a
closing remark, Mr. Parker.
Jeffrey Parker: No folks again, I mean,
I am genuinely appreciative of your support. I know that these are frustrating
times, not just ParkerVision but in general, it’s kind of a little bit of a
topsy-turvy world we live in today, but as it’s been said in time this too
shall pass, and we hope that you all stay with us, and that we will deliver
material as I said less anecdotal results here in the near future and so, thank
you very much and have a good evening. Bye.