We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Samsung/Nanosys
In consideration of everything that's happened, its too coincidental to be a coincidence.
Everything means something and is a clue.
I'm sure Nanocos lawyers have quite a detailed sordid story to tell if required and at the appropriate time.
Nanosys claims to be working in many different fields. They also claim significant progress in electroluminescent QDs. I suspect that this claim is premature and may qualify as vaporware.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/electroluminescent-quantum-dots-are-coming-sooner-than-you-think.3164041/
Absolutely. Indeed, the planned IPO was abandoned altogether.
Right, Feeks. We have to wonder why a company as successful as Nanosys claims to be needs to circumvent traditional IPO methods. Is disclosure an impediment?
Just my own opinion, but Nanosys over the last year or two seem to be pivoting more towards a 'display' tech company that also supplies QD's. Could simply be coincidence.
Also, Nanosys do not own all of their patent portfolio. Rather, they themselves are the exclusive licensees of a significant number of the the patents they hold.
Then they're probably not supplying Samsung at this point in time. If they are then they will not be receiving any IP related premium. In any case we don not know what their revenue, profit etc is.
But Nanosys don't seem to be making much money from this business venture of theirs
Hand in glove.
Yes they did. Transferred to them by Samsung with a view to becoming a second supplier of the anticipated vast future CFQD requirement (assuming Nanosys are not already supplying Samsung). In 2019 Samsung Display announced the end of LCD production, switching instead to a focus entirely on QD-OLED display production. Shortly afterwards Nanosys announced a multi million dollar expansion of their QD production facility, increasing production capacity of HEAVY METAL FREE QDs to more than 50 tons annually (that is enough for 50 million 65 inch QLED LCD TVs!). Coincidence?
Indeed, we still do not know where LG are getting their CFQDs from. I wonder.
Notice also, that over the past 12 months or so Nanosys have dropped all mention of 'Heavy Metal Free' from their press releases, when previously they were enthusiastically communicating such.
Samsung have made multiple investments in Nanosys and, inexplicably, touted Nanosys' Cadmium technology--more than a little hypocritical! Promoting Nanosys seemingly benefited Samsung's long-term goal of blocking Nanoco success. Samsung frequently referred to Nanosys as a 'partner'. Did Nanosys also steal Nanoco technology?
Indeed, how peculiar!
Interesting to see evidence of Samsung and Nanosys in bed together. Correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't Nanosys kept their head well below the parapet in the Nanoco v Samsung dispute?
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-01307
U.S. Patent No. 7,105,051. Samsung was also named as a defendant in the case since it claims to licence Nanosys' IP. Perhaps this dispute was settled in part because Samsung would otherwise have had to reveal that it is not using Nanosys' IP to produce quantum dots, or commit perjury by maintaining the pretence that it is.
I have no knowledge of the size of the potential claim made nor the settlement figure.
Do we know what this matter related to, the potential size of the claim and the figure settled for? Other than being an IP dispute and involving one of Nanoco's chief competitors does it have relevance to the Nanoco v Samsung case?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15916320/nncrystal-us-corporation-v-nanosys-inc/?page=2
It appears that the above dispute has now been resolved pre-trial.