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.
Anyone see any Apple involvement here or at least in helping the present situation to come about ???
Shhhh......
PPE you have a very similar mindset to me sir, when I'm reading your post it's like all the we things/ loose ends, in my mind your rounding them up and filling the gaps in this saga, excellent sir. you've a great sharp take on this situation.
I'll say this again our SP doesn't even now touch the potential of our takeout price. I'm saying this genuinely if we were at 50p I still would be saying the same thing on here. The eventual takeout price has to reflect our IP patents past and future revenue stream , never mind the substantial punitive damages We could get. Samsung would be crazy not to settle this at £5/ £6 hundred million in its own shares.
Come on Samsung , be smart settle right now.
GLA
Correction: QD Vision surrendered almost immediately and accepted an offer from SAMSUNG (not Nanosys).
Good points Amerloque. I wonder if any helpful technical details will emerge from the court case. Misinformation about the "cadmium free" status of various parties could come under scrutiny, for example.
This board's more fun than it's been in ages! My opinion on a few of the topics for what it's worth (not very much I'm sure)...
I don't follow the US vs. Asia IP infringement bias on behalf of the jury argument. I'm sure the advocates will stick to the facts and that the whole thing will be very academic. Besides, Nanosys is likely to be involved. Will be very surpsied if they aren't mentioned during the case. They're a US company. I'm more worried that sort of thing could work in Samsung's favour.
This case is existential for Nanoco. As such I'm sure it's absolutely rock solid. It's so high risk. I guess the SP isn't shooting up because large investors are weighing the risk as best they can before jumping in. A win for Nanoco would see the SP in the multiple £s. God knows how long it will take though and the fact that Nanoco's case will be solid means it's much more likely Samsung will settle or buy the company instead.
Samsung aren't concerned with any reputational damage. These things happen all the time and always get settled with no wrong doing admitted, etc.
The QD Vision purchase was nothing to do with mass production of CFQDs. If I remember rightly Hansol could make but not mass produce cad free dots, Nanosys could mass produce cad dots but not cad free dots using injection, Samsung licensed Nanosys IP and through some magic science could then mass produce cad free dots with Hansol. It would seem evidence of seeding is a smoking gun but we'll have to leave that part to the courtroom for a decision. The QD Vision purchase was incidental.
Nanosy sued quantum dot vision, also I read the legal fees alone were half a million, I think dollars a month for each side, that was breaking quantum QD visions balance sheet, Samsung was it's saviour, though it was reported Samsung had paid $70 million dollars for QD visions, it was also said Samsung paid much more that reported figure of $70m. Why because QD visions had spent $100m of investors money developing its IP.
I'm now expecting a mostly all share offer from Samsung of between £350 to £ 600 million pounds , to include everything lock stock and barrel. Lawsuit dropped, and smiling faces all round. That for me would be a reasonable and fair settlement.
DYOR, and never rely on anyone's financial forcast. GLA
Samsung bought QD Vision because it was in bankruptcy and possessed potentially valuable electroflourescent IP (even today, the holy grail of quantum dots). Nanoco, the sole vendor of cadmium free quantum dots at a time when cadmium was being banned, had extremely high prospects and were not available for sale.
Nanoco have been in discussions with Samsung from around March last year about our patent infringements, they must have know about a imminent infringement lawsuit against them, and as yet have not strenuously denied any wrongdoing whatsoever , normally their lawyer's. Would be prepared for this bad media infringements scenario, and yet all Samsung have put out is " WE ARE REVIEWING THESE PATENTS " they've had over 10 months to review them with there expert patent lawyers, if they don't know by now if they've breached our patents , then our patent lawyers will confirm to Samsung what Samsung already slyly know, that they definitely have knowingly used our patented technology without our consent.
The very fact that they are hiding from even giving a strong media rebuttal to our lawsuit says it all.
Or are they keeping quite as they might be thinking about a substantial offer for nanoco to stop the media and especially the American media circus during nanoco's lawsuit. I hear TRUMP YELLING they are stealing our technologies again. Get punitive damages from them to stop this happening. That's the only time I want to hear trumps mouth opening, LOL.
GLA
We're looking at fundamental processing tech here. You either have hot injection or seeding. It seems that Nano are claiming that Samsung'e dots have evidence of clustering which means they have used a seeding process. They will have to prove they didn't.
It is preposterous to claim that Samsung bought QD Vision for the purpose of developing cadmium free QDs. QD Vision evolved from MIT and were focused on developing I electroluminescent QDs and associated IP. The company was surviving by selling cadmium based QDs that were allegedly infringing on Nanosys' IP. QD Vision proved unable to solve electroluminescent issues and was forced into bankruptcy when Nanosys sued them for infringement. QD Vision surrendered almost immediately and accepted an offer from Nanosys. To my knowledge, Nanoco was the only company selling cadmium free QDs at the time.
PP my username is BlahBlahDoh, not Song Su-hyun. There are many possible reasons why Samsung haven't issued any immediate response, I only mentioned it because you might expect a swift rebuttal if the journalist's take is accurate. As far as we know QD Vision's patents covered different niches to Nanocos, rather than anything like an alternative scalable seeding process, but Samsung presumably chose them and not Nanoco for some reason. Whether that is relevant to their defence is anyone's guess, but Su-hyun seems to think so.
The point of the post was to demonstrate that other views of the situation are possible beyond inflationary one-sided fantasies. The court will hear both sides. As far as that Korean journalist knows, Samsung dabbled with Nanoco's tech but then chose to go a different route with viable alternatives which were paid for. The implication is that Samsung thought about buying Nanoco but chose QD vision instead, and that allowed them to forge their own QD production platform with help from Nanosys. If so, it should be relatively easy to prove that in court. No reaction from Samsung yet though.
"Samsung acquired the US-based QD Vision in late 2016 ahead of QLED commercialization. QD Vision was another quantum dot material company, and it sold all its intellectual property to Samsung.
At the time, Samsung was selling its SUHD TVs with its own cadmium-free quantum dot technology sourced in house from the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology and produced by Hansol Chemical. It was collaborating with California-based Nanosys to further develop its quantum dot technology."
"Nanoco named Samsung Display as one of the defendants in the suit. Samsung Display, however, was not involved in manufacturing the QLED screens."
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200218000663