Hand sanitizer and surface cleaner company Byotrol had a strong 2020 and are confident about 2021 Watch Now
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 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.
If nano have irrefutable proof Samsung has nano CFQD's in their TV's there will be no need for a trial. That would mean the Judge could find them guilty and pronounce verdict almost immediately. This could be the case if their production method leaves a signature sign on the Dots. I have no idea if that is the case or not, but ME confidence about the case could imply he has irrefutable proof,
Then, the big question, does Samsung think he has, and can they risk it?
The 26m Tv's produced came from a statement on this board so I cannot guarantee it. The number hardly matters (though could form part of the damages Calc). The important part is the basis of the damages - either $15 per Tv or $1,000. Since Q (Quantun) Led Tvs obviously QD's important to the margin, which ME thinks nano deserve a part of. No doubt something between them.
Even if only $15 = £630m that will be followed by £nnn from EU, £nnn from China... and would require an injunction on sales to prevent Samsung selling illegal IP, besides disrupting Samsung future display policy.
I agree with PPE, BotBot and BTB that Nanoco has shown incompetence (though the latter two did not use this word). Success in business requires many skills, sales ability being one of the most important. Nanoco clearly possesses outstanding scientific talent, but completely lacked one of the most critical sales skill--the ABILITY TO READ PROSPECTS. This accounts for Nanoco's inability to close deals and its vulnerability to IP theft.
I remember Nigwit arguing many times that sales and business skills are not necessary to business success. Sadly, Edelman and the Nanoco board held the same belief. Even when they hired a sales VP, they sought someone with industry connections rather than strong sales skills. For this reason, alone, Edelman should be replaced ASAP. The CEO must have business skills and also be able to recognize sales skills.
Nanosys certainly possessed strong business and sales skills, but they also benefited because (1) Samsung had no interest in cadmium quantum dots, which were not a threat and (2) Samsung, having allegedly stolen Nanoco IP, would benefit by limiting Nanoco's success. Making Nanosys more successful would accomplish this.
On another subject, I read somewhere recently that Nanoco IP is protected by Patents and trade secrets. I pray that Nanoco did not depend on Trade secrets for protection. Trade secrets are not protected by the courts but only by the ability to keep a secret. I don't believe this would be possible if manufacturing QDs next door to Samsung.
Unfortunately the reality check here is that we haven’t been able to get any decent commercial deal whatsoever despite all the hype.
We need to try to keep this as real as possible for people who haven’t lived through this and are checking out the boards for investment insights.
Assuming Samsung does settle, realistically this will only be before the actual court case. It will not be before the first initial response which is due end Aug/beginning Sept. so at best the Samsung settlement though for the US piece would be no more than the license fees x wilful uplift. At best it’s 14m x £15 x 3... which let’s be real... that is still £630m less fees would worst case would be half so £315m. Which would still give us a x6 value from today. But.... PPE although pointed is absolutely right. What have we done. What have we achieved. If we truly were the world leader why haven’t we managed to sell our dots. Did Samsung truly copy our IP... I’m now becoming more of a realist. If I can get 50p now I have averaged down so much already I will be over the moon. £1... and I will be ecstatic.
We should have, by now, heard about Merck and we have heard nothing whatsoever. This isn’t the case that negotiations take a long time. The previous deal was running out anyway and any negotiation would have started along time before then. The potential is huge but we lack the ability to close.... and that is my biggest concern.
Nige-W, I agree your belief that Samsung has to settle before the trial makes a lot of sense (although I am not fully convinced they will). I am less clear why you think they will settle before 1 Sept. Settling before the trial makes sense and we are told this is the norm, but the trial is, pressumably, at least a year away and maybe a lot further given the pandemic. So why settle now rather than sometime in the next year or so? Also I am unclear what powers the Judge has and when they might be, or are likely to be, used. For example is the "injunction"a real possibility before the trial? Wouldn't it normally be used after the trial if the settlement sum was not paid in time. Imposing it now seems like pre-judging the case before trial. Or are you expecting the judge to pass judgement before any trial by giving a summary judgement based on only the written evidence from both sides?
I like the increase from £14M to 26m Tvs, and feel guilty looking a gift horse in the mouth, but this increase seems a bit strange given in was only a few weeks ago that ME was claiming 14m as the figure. Are you sure the figure relates to just QDot Tvs? And where does the figure come from? If it is right I might up my expectations of any settlement value assuming Nanoco win the case! Many thanks.
For PPE to call us clueless when his Great revelation seems to be no more than saying the settlement will be less than we are hoping for and will take longer, doesn't seem so great!
Incidentally the $42 Bn max damages has increased (No of tvs produced increased from 14m to 26m now) to $78 Bn. I won't bovver what that makes the Sp cos not even E Texas will award that. Much more worrying for Samsung is the injunction on Sales and future Court Cases. They Must get a settlement and I think before 1st Sep cos I don't think a Court case is needed.
ME already said IP infringement is easily proven cos Samsung has nano chips in their Tv's.
A fundamental flaw in his Philosophy is basing the damages on the current Sp (ie when Sp = 17). This assumes the Market values nano correctly and the Court Case will fail, but the market is usually wrong. Particularly when it come to Tech stocks - note Dotcom bust when it devalued all our best Tech Coys, so they were bought out by foreign Coys.
So the question is what will ME settle for since he holds all the aces (injunction and continual Court cases besides damages and destroying Samsung development of Tv's). As you say this could be a very very clever ploy by ME.
And PPE thinks ME a fool? We shall see who the fool really is.
PPE - Samsung stealing Nano IP doesn't make the BoD incompetent, it could prove the exact opposite when settlement arrives. Nanoco couldn't have generated $14bn revenue and it could be that they get more than they could have made via the courts without lifting a finger. That would be very clever, don't you agree?
Nanosys succeeded because they were tied to Samsung. Nanoco set out to be partner agnostic and Samsung allegedly stole their IP.
You may argue Nanoco should have towed the line with Samsung, but why would they place their entire destiny in the hands of such an untrustworthy company?
As for the $42bn figure, I take the points made. That was only my theoretical maximum, but it's too simplistic and therefore probably a misnomer. Of course nobody believes that would be the settlement amount.
That’s certainly a strong possibility Intrusive, in which case breach of any collaboration contract with Samsung would hold little relevance. It is most likely that Mintz Levin has advised against enforcing any contract, possibly for that reason? The fact is that Samsung is making CFQD to NANO’s recipe and the best way to remedy the position is by enforcing Patent law.
I've got to ask the Board of Nanoco why you bother existing because let's face it your track record is simply appalling your picking up a pay cheque funded by share holder charity for doing **** all!
ddubya...your getting confused between suing under a breach of contract and suing under an nfringement of IP which is supported by TP funding..The factors they never had a collaboration contract either because Samsung refused to sign one and they got starry eyed over thus humongous global technology company and prospects it offered them or Nanoco mgt are just incompetent or both.
Let's say Nanoco has value on its IP and let's say Samsung saw that and stole it now that makes Nanoco board look really, really incompetent.
Now if Nanosys are growing like crazy what's that say about Nanoco whose IP Samsung made billions from..tgat Nanoco mgt team are completely and utterly incompetent..I do hooe that ME reads these posts he's got alot of explaining as to why his team can't deliver and why Nanosys team can.
So thats the dilemma Nanoco IP has no value in which case the mgt team s charade or its worth billions and totally incompetent with zero commercial skills unable to sell a bean..
The technology wasn’t taken directly from Nanoco, rather it was stolen via Dow.
If that is the case you might think the TP funder would not have touched the case with anyone’s barge pole. The simple answer is that you cannot know they did not have a suitable contract in position, and those on side, who have access to all information through a 12 month DD process are willing to risk what could be tens of $m to take Samsung on.
The answer is simple they never had one to start with just commercial suicide why give Samsung a free lunch!
There might be a myriad of legal considerations in play PPE. For example, there could have been a contract in position yet enforcing rights under it might not be as lucrative as suing for patent infringement and may even weaken NANO's hand. Not sure if it is as clear cut as you suggest.
dubbed.. oh I don't know maybe it's the very fact that they are not suing under breach of contract which is a much faster and more clearly defined legal process where the benefits being sued for can be more easily defined!
PPE - what gives you such confidence that no collaborative or other type of agreement was in position? And could it not just be that it is more simple to prove infringement of patents than breach of the terms of any contract?
Wonder why ME is such a flop?
I'm just amazed at the deluded souls here who have you not been aware of the impact of Covid-19 everything has been put back at least a year. There is a huge back log of legal cases pending in the US courts.
Getting $200m to $300m settlement in 2 years or 70p a share given the current circumstances is very reasonable and realistic. Expecting $14 billion not realistic at all..As for evidence of Samsung making early settlement 2 years in advance of a court case well none provided so maybe thats why the sp is hovering around 17p rather than £5 because investors don't agree with you.
Its also common practice to have collaborative contracts in play to which its easier to sue under for breach of contract. Such contracts ensure that both parties share any potential benefits from any collaborative work which leads to commercial sales or financial gains.
Nanoco mgt team failed to have any collaborative agreement otherwise they would be suing under terms of a contractual breach where one party benefits at the expense of the other parties contribution as well as a separate legal claim for infringement on IP on top!
I agree with everything you say why a settlement is vital to Samsung. Just add a couple of things, if no deal (contract) with nano there would have to be an injunction on Samsung QLed Tvs, and no reason why nano does not sue Samsung and Hansol in the rest of the World.
Don't agree price of takeover. It should be possible damages + extg Mrkt Cap (otherwise just let court case proceed). Any takeover would have to be recommended (or not) by Management and voted for by shareholders, during which time counter offers could be made.
As you say East Texas renowned for being harsh regarding IP infringements (hence defence in writing before Court Case, enabling fast tracking) and since litigation experts already in place and TPF, it will go to settlement regardless of nano situation. No compromises necessary when on % damages.
Might not even be a Court case if Gilstrap considers Samsung defence worthless, in which case a judgment early Sep? Payment within 28 days and contempt of Court if not paid.
PPE the key factors here are that the court is in Texas where litigation is dealt with very harshly and as we keep reminding ourselves, over 90% of cases are resolved before the court date. The likelihood of an early settlement is speculative of course, but my point is there's huge risk even for a company of Samsung's size. They're putting billions on the line (a percentage of $42bn and much more if there's an injunction) when a takeover would possibly be hundreds of millions.
Investors like me speculating on a takeover are doing so using their own common sense. Nanoco won't go bust, they have too much backing. The course case will proceed because of the litigation funder. Samsung don't have a targeted plan to screw over shareholders by delaying, they're interesting in the best outcome for them, which could be a takeover or early settlement.
Criticism of the board is possibly unfair because they may have planned this from 2017 to maximise their returns on Samsung's infringement. That's a very sensible strategy for a company of Nanoco's size. As for why other partnerships have failed to take off, I'm concerned about this. Other partners may have been trying to throw Nanoco under the bus - can't be ruled out. It's also possible that something about Nanoco's technology doesn't work as intended. Why did AUO panel's never go anywhere? Why did the gaming monitors fail to launch? Why did Apple drop their investment? I'm wondering whether Nanoco's technology is commercially viable in current form.
My reason for investment is I think Samsung are guilty and expect the payout to be hugely profitable from where we are now. I don't expect to have a mortgage in two years time :)
Still no facts, just introduces a new question. Why don't you share with us the history of all Samsung Court Cases and damages, rather than expressing your opinions, which, unsupported are worthless.
We don’t know what contractual ‘protection’ NANO did or did not have during the collaboration stage PPE. However, we are led to believe that Samsung infringed NANO patents regardless, and our legal team and funders seem to agree.
Nanosys has done well because (in my view) Samsung supported it to undermine NANO. Had Nanosys invented CFQD, it would probably have been choked to death years ago by the same hands that funded it.
This is all about control of CFQD technology and the multi £bn’s available from its control. When NANO patents run out Samsung with all its resources and money will be able to harvest the market that NANO created and probably not only in Display but IR too.
Crikey. Yes. One doesn't have to go back as far as Feb before they get to PPE's posts about how the legal action will destroy Samsung, Texas is a killer choice for location due to a tendency to award punitive damages and how well Nanoco have played the situation. All this when most of the long termers here were being more realistic.
I don't disagree with what anyone's said because I don't really know. I think that NANO have a case that has been verified by mulitple rounds of expert due diligence which gives me confidence. Expected damages are potentially huge - from the low hundreds of millions up to 14 billion. Samsung have an expert and very extensive legal team. They will know very well whether they are guilty or not and will play with a hard nosed business outlook - minimise damages and drag the thing out hoping it will go away one way or the other. They might well get away scott free but if not the settlement won't come quickly. NANO should end up with a short term licensing agreement on top to cover the next couple of years of the patents' lifecylce and hopefully a longer term one if there are other patents in play in Samsung's next gen screens.
ME explained once how they protected IP through a combination of patents and trade secrets. It sounded thoughtful to me. It obviously wasn't enough but It's very difficult to keep a giant from stealing your tech if you're a tiny start up. Difficult to slate management for that. The thief is the one in the wrong.
Well someone has certainly changed their tune.
it just amazes me its like you guys don't watch the news we have a Covid-19 led major recession with furlough ending soon and a difficult time for the UK economy with mass unemployment looming and with Nanoco's track record of commercial success close to zero.
Of course their IP has value assuming that Samsung knicked it..Which means the scientists and the IP has value.
The issue is Nanoco's mgt and Board are really crap a complete flop and should have been sacked a long time ago.
Entering into a collaboration partnership with Samsung and sharing their trade secrets without any form of commercial protection was crass stupidity and incompetence of the highest order. If they had not made this school boy error they would have no doubt had a licencing agreement with Samsung given that Samsung are racking in billions we assume based on Nanoco's IP.
Thats the reality a company with great potential run by an incompetent and commercially negligent mgt team..This explains clearly why Nanosys is running rings around them why they made hundreds of sales and Nanoco zippy yet someone is profiting from their IP!
Nige_w and your posts ate utterly unrealistic and based on expectations of winning the lottery..Let's face facts if Nanoco was expecting billions like you keep ranting on why is the sp only 17p?
And no I'm not shorting this stock I'm just realistic over both timings and likely payout based on facts..Your posts have little in the way of substance.
Just give me one example where Samsung a well known IP thieve with a track record paid out billions 2 years before a legal case was heard....Come on Nige just one single example!