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.
sorry "prefer" not "orefer"
Amerloque. I think I would orefer Nanoco take them to the cleaners.
$42 B? Does not seem enough to pay for the orchestrated sabotaging one of the UK's brightest and most promising companies. Take them to school!
Good catch, Screenlearner. Part of my post, where I made a similar point, got lost from my post:
Note that Nanosys was not really a competitor of Samsung, since it produced only cadmium based quantum dots. It now appears that Samsung sought to block
Nanoco’s growth and its credibility. By investing in Nanosys, Samsung would insure that Nanosys would receive sufficient funds to dominate the non-Samsung market. Moreover, the investment combined with the announcement to the world that Nanosys was a market leader raised Nanosys’ visibility and credibility in the world compared to Nanoco, which had just suffered multiple disappointments.
In addition to the above questionable behavior, I have to wonder why Samsung did not push more forcefully for a ban on cadmium quantum dots. Could it have to do with the fact that Nanoco needed this ban to be successful? In reality, Samsung did not need the ban, since they were their own in-house customer for quantum dots. If Samsung were so intent on eliminating Nanoco, would they have stopped at bribing officials to delay implementation of the cadmium ban. Past Samsung history tells me, “No”.
I have no idea if Samsung did try to Sabotage Nanoco completely but, assuming Nanoco's claim is true, Samsung's actions probably had that effect anyway. I know realism is needed and that this won't happen but if we are to ever see companies stopping the practice of stealing IP the cost has to be made unbearable. In short if Samsung willfully infringed Nanoco's patents and made $14B of doing it, the settlement SHOULD be $14 B *3 = $42 B. I don't believe it will happen, but really why not? I wonder if US jurorsand Judges have the guts to do it! Still before then Nanoco need to win the case.
Hi amer... also to point out the total absence of Samsung from RoHS Cadmium ban.. why?.. because they would have to disclose how theirs worked i.e. same-same-but same. Also, I have looked into this many a time, if you do enough digging there is a connection between Lombard Odier and the chaebol, their dominating position is being used against Nano for multiple reasons (perhaps a hedge?). If you notice that their huge holding came in at just the right time.
ddubya - Think you've probably brought Samsung to its knees with your purchasing decision - good on you.
It's greatly increased my confidence that they will settle out of court now before the end of the month.
Keep up the good work and I'm searching for any Samsung products with a hammer in my hand.
By itself, infringing NANO's IP alone would not ensure it was still born Amer!oque. Samsung stood to benefit most if NANO left the scene quietly and was starved of cash to develop its products further, so it's an entirely plausible scenario, if very difficult to proge. If this is what happened Samsung is guilty of far greater actual harm to the UK Economy (and our investment) than the more tenuous allegations against Hauwei.
Proving the use of our IP in Samsung's TV is thankfully a matter of fact but given the stakes this case, if it goes to Court could take some time and there could be unexpected revelations along the way. Meantime Samsung is off my list of purchases - bought 3 DELL monitors last week and did not review Samsung on principle, whereas it would have been my choice before.
Nanoco should subpoena records from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation (“SVIC”), since there is strong reason to suspect that SVIC participated in sabotaging Nanoco in order to safeguard Samsung/Hansol’s stolen CF QD technology.
I suspected nothing at the time, since it made sense for Samsung to invest in a promising quantum dot leader. On reflection, I strongly suspect that Samsung’s investment had ulterior motives when they made a substantial follow-on investment in Nanosys in June 2015 (there was an earlier investment in 2010). Following years of working and negotiating with Nanoco and DOW Chemical to source cadmium free quantum dots from Nanoco and DOW (the world’s only known volume manufacturer of CFQD), Samsung had just announced in February 2015 that it had chosen Hansol, a Samsung chaebol company to supply its quantum dots. The June 2015 rather hyperbolic announcement follows:
'Samsung Venture Investment Corporation (“SVIC”), the venture capital arm of the Samsung Group. The investment is follow-on to a 2010 investment; the new funds will be used to expand production capacity as demand for Nanosys technology for displays grows rapidly.
“Our investment in Nanosys is consistent with our strategy to work closely with established market leaders.” says Michael Pachos, Director at SVIC. “Nanosys is a technology leader and has built a significant business in the space. The company has demonstrated both a technical and business vision in driving adoption of their products and we look forward to contributing to the progress of Nanosys.”
The mysterious and sudden emergence of this Hansol cadmium-free product was a shock to Nanoco and the world, as it had taken Nanoco almost a decade to develop this technology.
Nanoco certainly must have suspected that their IP had been stolen and must have voiced their suspicions. Samsung, of course, has a long record of stealing IP from smaller companies. It was very unlikely that Hansol could produce legitimate CFQDs so quickly without stolen IP, but Nanoco had no way of proving such at this time. Samsung apparently attempted to soften the blow by insisting that Samsung would need Nanoco to be a second source. We know this because Michael Edelman repeatedly carried this message to shareholders for many years.
Setting aside the likelihood of stolen IP, we need to ask another very important question. If Samsung had indeed stolen IP from struggling Nanoco, how could they prevent Nanoco from growing prosperous enough to sue them? There were two quantum dot TV worlds at the time—the Samsung CFQD world and the non-Samsung cadmium world. Funding Nanosys would improve the latter’s ability to dominate the non-Samsung market and possibly lead to Nanoco's demise.
Note that Nanosys was not really a competitor of Samsung, since it produced only cadmium based quantum dots. It now appears that Samsung sought to block