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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
PPE, Ha Ha! All talk no trousers!. Asking me a question about past Texas IPO court precedings when when I have already said in previous post that this litigation on IP lark is all new to me, is just a futile attempt to deflect from you having to answer my questions and showing that you have no more knowledge than any of us. You make up "facts"and claim knowledge you do not have and cannot substantiate. Why don't yougo through every Texas court IP case and list them showing this never has happened. After all it is you who is claiminng knowledge that you don't have, not me. In fact it could be that Nanoco does not expect its request for an injuction to be granted, but there is still that possibility or else there is no point in asking for one, becauseit wouldn't put pressure on anyone if they all knew it would be never granted. hence my original point stands.
We are in that place where News is the only Driver for the SP and we have no idea if/when it will arrive. Still waiting of course for the “Watch this space news” on Merck. I do wonder if the recent and unexpected accelerated book raise might have reflected a delay or problem with the contract under negotiation? Really hoping not, as we do not need another dead end relationship.
In my view, Samsung will not settle any earlier than immediately before the court case, unless their defence is so hopeless the judge tells them it will find against them without trial, in a form of summary judgement. I feel certain Samsung will have an argument to take it to trial though - like Hansol stumbled on the discovery using a Chemistry set one worthy employee received (Xmas 2007) for Secret Santa.
SL..ME made it pretty clear on his comments that that the legal action was not just for damages but also included allocation for an injunction. Answer my question first provide examples of where defendants in Texas IP legal cases have settled 2 years prior to when the court case was heard?
PPE Your comment: On injunction its made pretty clear this has be entered into the legal proceedings and more of a back up and threat to add pressure to Samsung that not only do they face financial risks but operational ones as well coupled with bad publicity.
Where did you get this from? And while you're at it please tell us what you understood but we all missed about the share raise.
I am not being pessimistic but realistic which some of you confuse with not being optimistic.. You can be both realistic and optimistic over both outcome and timescales..If you have any Texas IP case law and judgements where defendant's settled 2 years prior to the case being heard please share, thanks!
SL incorect on injunction its made pretty clear this has be entered into the legal proceedings and more of a back up and threat to add pressure to Samsung that not only do they face financial risks but operational ones as well coupled with bad publicity.
Agree 90% settle but how many settle 2 years prior to when the case is heard..Samsung could initially spend tens of millions and even enter the court for the first few days then convene for settlement prior to judgement so there is no real need for them to settle now..Also these companies office politics kick on as they don't want to be seen as a soft target for any unwarranted legal claim...Remember they are making billions of profit there is no risk in them sitting on the fence and they know doubt have a good idea of what the likely total legal costs and settlement would be based on their own lengthy experience and in house experienced legal team.
PPE, you are pessimistic on size and timescale of any (potential) payout, Nige-W is optimistic at least on timescale and probably on amount. Most of the rest of us are somewhere between these positions, and none of us (and that includes me of course) really knows what will happen. I tend to be pessimistic on timescales but more optimistic that you on the size of the award, but I am just going on gut feelings really! I suspect even ME and Samsung are to some extent uncertain. Most agree the judge will not impose an injuction, but in the end he will make his own decision and that decision on this matter and possibly other points could change the course of the outcome dramatically. I find it interesting to hear people's opinions but I take them all with a pinch of salt, as should others do with mine.
That's seems like quite a pessimistic perspective PPE. The percentage of Texas court cases that get settled early is over 90% right? Also this case poses a risk to their multi-billion dollar QD investment. I'm not discrediting what you're saying because you could be right, but this case is unique and Samsung have a lot to lose.
Samsung's likely response 'we deny and refute all allegations regarding IP infringement see you in court in two years time if you are still trading'...Samsung is racking in billions of profit on allegedly infringing Nanoco's IP why should they seek settlement when the case has not even been heard and proved against them....I expect nothing from Samsung until Q1 2022. Like all these belligerent firms they won't settle early because it sends out the wrong message to all would be legal claims makes them look like a soft target...And even if they lose the case in 2022 the amount might be $1 billion but then it gets halved, then halved again, less TP funding so if we are very lucky $300m or 50p to 60p after a very long drawn out hard fight till end of 2022!...Stop being so naive expecting an early settlement.