Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDypuifsE80
Hi crow2 - this might help you with that thought of yours relating to future development / IP / joint working with Samsung. The science is way past my comprehension so I haven't thought about the angles you raise.
If Nanoco win LG will be licking their lips.
@Sammy88
Spot on.
Samsung will probably want and need as much of Nonocos expertise and innovative ideas as they can get hold of.
The only problem that I see is that ATM, they want it for nothing or are willing to steal it.
Regards Nanoco, why they should really want to work again with 'basically criminals ' who are never to be trusted again under any circumstance.
IMO Nanoco have been placed under 'trial' by Samsung for some time and the bullies need to be taught a lesson, made to provide substantial recompense and then maybe things might settle down so that sensible and legitimate negotiations might get started again.
Give these bar stewards an inch and they'll take a mile, as they've proven already.
Appreciate that Screenlearner, I'm just saying you can't just go back to the old relationship after all that's happened.
@Sammy88, I agree a lot of trust has been lost., but we mustn't forget that Samsung is still some 90% of the market. Nanoco might be wise to swallow any desire for 'just retribution' and make money by working with the 'only' game in town.
I had a problem with my computer so was slow to finish my last post. In the meantime there were serveral good and helpful posts by people who replied before I sent off my 'completed' post. Many thanks for these.
i'LL TRY AGAIN: , @Crow2, I acknowledge your post which was earlier than mine! I think my question is subtly different although it is based on the same fundamental idea of the possible need for future collaboration. What I am unclear about is whether only Nanoco's first discovery is truely ground breaking and the rest is just an edifice which others could easily build once they know this first discovery OR have Nanoco produced (and may be are continuing to produce) a series of ground breaking discoveries that other's such as Samsung are unlikely to be able to keep up with unless they have Nanoco's help?
Screenlearner... After struggling for a while on their 'much better Cad-free QDs' project, I suspect Samsung may well approach Nanoco to solve the problem of mass production of said 'much better Cad-free QDs'... ?
Basically a troll confusing rude condescension for logical analysis.
Forgive us for not rising above it.
N has patented improvements to the seeding process which enables the production of better red and green dots, green in particular (+15 yrs of patent life remaining). As such, N are able produce red and green dots superior to Samsung's, and entirely free of both cadmium AND indium phosphide.
Furthermore, N have invented a method for producing high quality 2d QDs and other nanomaterials at scale. 2d QDs have the potential to significantly exceed the performance of the current generation of QDs.
@Crow2, I acknowledge your post which was earlier than mine! I think my questionn is subtly different although
SL - really the point I was trying to make. Current litigation involved Nanoco's claim to pretty fundamental claims to basic synthesis of QDs. A pipeline of development springs from that and Nanoco have been busy subsequently and filed multiple patents. Given Samsung's claimed infringement and their own product development their research is certain to have overlapped in many aspects as it's derived from the same methodology. Assuming Nanoco's claims upheld Samsung would be wide open to future litigation unless a future working agreement is forthcoming.
Screenlearner, some good questions which I don't know the answer to.
Is it realistic to think, however, that Nanoco and Samsung could collaborate again in future? Surely too much trust has been lost?
I hope people will forgive me for prefacing this post by saying I am in the completely udecided group about whether Samsung will settle or not. My question here may sound related but it is only tangentially so. I don't really want to encourage the continuation of the debate as I don't think any of us can really know. What I am wondering is to what extent (if at all) people think Samsung need Nanoco for further development in the area of QDs. If we assume S now have (via whatever means) N's initially and important discoveries, what about subsequent discoveries which may lead to much better non cadium QDs? Do people think S have the expertise to run with it from here on their own or might they need Nanoco some time in the future when, say ,N produces much better QDs and sells them to Samsuns's competitors? Is that likely? unlikely?
Back on the “YOU ALL” nigwitty - please go away, we’re all extremely fed up with your pompous postings - they contribute nothing…zilch…
Nigwitty - I bet you said much the same thing before each and every one of those cases you lost at court.
if we all ultimately come out richer than when we started.......who cares, really.
Sometimes it's just about wanting to be right... LOL
Both camps (settlement, no settlement) have shot their arrows at this point. One of them will get to draw the target around where it lies very soon and claim all the retrospective plaudits.
I very much agree Crow. Samsung might see advantage in dragging the case out further to starve NANO of funding but since it is not manufacturing CFQD on a commercial scale and does not have capacity to supply Samsung it is not a competitor in manufacturing terms.
A potentially smaller settlement pre trial seem to make more sense than risk a much larger payment post trial. Samsung can then carry on making CFQD and push ahead with its new manufacturing plants.
BT’s only strategy is to make clear that NANO is prepared to go to court. To do otherwise presents Samsung with the upper hand. In any event NANO’s case appears strong, so why would it not progress to trial? Recent events must increase (but not eliminate) likelihood of settlement, rather than reduce it.
Given the apparent momentum swing in Nanoco's favour regards a positive outcome, I took this morning's RNS as a signal a settlement was more likely than ever. Of course BT says see you in court. Historical data suggests settlement most likely and will be preferable to both parties going forward. Samsung have invested massively in QD display R&D and will want to future proof their ongoing development. Ongoing developments already potentially in the pipeline will rely on a good working relationship with Nanoco in the future given Nanoco's own patent filings in this area over the last few years. Risk assessed - seems a no brainer for Samsung to ultimately settle before judgment and Nanoco want to be involved with by far the biggest company involved in QD display.
People who have been banned before ought to have learned their lesson about what is acceptable, and surely ought to have a little more humility, but it is extremely difficult for a leopard to change it's dots.
It's good to see BT retaining his level headed caution while outlining the multiple significant reasons for optimism. I think Feeks offers one of the best analyses on the board, free of arrogant certainties, condescension and insults, and highlighting the most telling issues. I like his range of possible outcomes from a trial of $200m-$1Bn+, it is sensible and realistic, imo. After 5 years of obstinate deceit, I doubt Samsung will finally do the right thing and settle, but it's obviously possible. Given the failure of Samsung's central defence and the wholesale rejection of nearly all their technical "opinions", a settlement probably now requires a figure considerably higher than the bottom of that range, and the SP seems to reflect that.
We should, like BT, retain some caution, but it is difficult.
Nigwitty if this case does not settle before 12 Sept. it won't make you right. It will simply mean that the case has not settled.
Nigwitty - as most people here have already spotted, your posts on settlement are totally dismissive and not conducive winning anybody over . In my view it displays an almost irrational conviction, and certainly a lack of sensible judgement, about the reality of the current situation. BT does not have any reason to say anything else publicly than what he had done today. This is seemingly obvious to just about everyone here but yourself, which is surprising given your extensive experience of litigation (which you repeatedly lost without settling ). I'd be amazed if your lawyers never discussed settlement with you before trial, or maybe they did but you did not listen?
BT has no reason to settle for a low offer, and what he said is exactly whatv pe woujdl ecpect him to say. Anythng else would be remarkabkle and neglgigent too.