Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
The Kindle didn't omit the word "consistently" yesterday, must be an intermittent fault?
I don't think patent cases have any time limitations paolo111, and although someone suggested the chosen court has a reputation for quick decisions, it's likely to go on for years, including appeals. No date given for the start, as far as I know. Informed people seem to think it's a tactical move intended to focus minds on an out of court settlement, although it could also be seen as a last throw of the dice for struggling Nanoco, at least as far as the display market goes. If the case does go ahead, it could be interesting to hear Samsung's view, particularly their reason, or perhaps "justification" for why they rejected Nanaco's technology after a long hard look at it.
The loss is Caroline Flack is truly tragic and a terrible waste of a very talented and beautiful young woman. I can absolutely agree there.
Off topic, I like the other poster thought exactly the same thing , until I delved into her suicide story myself, and then I felt terrible, as I was sadly wrong in my thinking, her last Instagram post shown by her family explained a lot. her personal problems were massively misrepresented by the mass media and online trolls, and culminating in Caroline flacks hanging herself. That's a why it's so important for all of us to pull back when we find ourselves pulled into a online arguments. We can't see the damage it causes on the other side.
GLA
Off topic, in reply to the end of that post : Caroline Flack's suicide was by Caroline flack, and followed a horrific attack on her sleeping boyfriend that could have killed or blinded him. Her previous boyfriend Andrew said before the suicide that his relationship with her was toxic and controlling, and ended his tweet with a link to a domestic violence helpline. Meanwhile does anyone know how long patent cases take to be heard and when the court case is ??
This faulty kindle changes your words , sorry ,LOL
GLA
Richard Griffiths has 39.635.738 shares in nanoco plc, maybe that doesn't indicate he's pumped tens of millions into nanoco.
He's just recently again pumped another £750.000 into it, Nanoco is currently valued at £82 million pounds .
It makes you wonder who's dishonest disrespectful and misleading here. How was is that now.
GLA
Yesterday I stated that RG's recent increase amounted to about £750K, yet today someone deliberately contradicted that saying "Richard Griffiths is consistently pumping in tens of millions into nanoco shares, as we've all just recently seen him do just recently"
That isn't a matter of opinion, an unkind person might say it's dishonest, disrespectful and misleading. The entire MCAP of Nanoco is a few tens of millions, RG's entire holding is less than 15% of that.
That's true as patents have a limited life span.
Think Nanocos unique molecular seeding patent runs out in around 5 years time.
The main concern would be if the case against Samsung is seen as an act of desperation or a last throw of the dice, as someone has suggested on the Advfn board.
"If someone did reverse engineer Coca-Cola which must have been done and put if on to the market with the exact chemical makeup thus taste, I would say Coca-Cola would not be happy and litigation would follow."
Only if they could prove industrial espionage- Coca Cola recipe is a trade secret not patented. If it was patented, Coca Cola flavour could be made by everyone and their dog by now.
Thanks Amerloque, yes that is very much "of interest"! On the face of it, it shows those Korean journalists are probably on the wrong track if they see the QD patents as useful defence evidence. They held a collection of patents, so it's possible there was something else in there which Samsung found a use for, but it seems unlikely. Everyone following Nanoco has been surprised by Samsung's ability to shun Nanoco's technology, which was specifically aimed at the problem for years, and widely viewed as the technological leader, and somehow find a viable alternative method. Nanoco themselves in the wording of their accusation don't claim to know for certain that Samsung have infringed, only that they see it as likely. A lot will depend on whether the court accepts that view and puts the onus on Samsung to prove they haven't infringed.
Thank you for your concern TB. I am sleeping very well and I get up early every weekday. It is just that I logged on this morning when I don’t normally.
Probably not very fair to present my opinion of your posting as a rant though :).
ddubya you keep stating that other posters are inferring all sorts of different things on this forum, this is only your interpretation of other people's post, as I've stated before everyone interprets post differently, but what you shouldn't do is start making personal negative in the middle of the night attacks on other posters, maybe you need some decent sleep to stop this ranting, it's good to have someone playing devils advocate here to balance things up a bit, but please less of the personal online attacks on this forum please, we've all witnessed what these things can do to others, as in Caroline flacks suicide by online bullies.
GLA
It was super pedantic :-)
Thanks Basscadet. Nothing to disagree with there other than that discussion is around Patents and not Trademarks, which as you know serve a different purpose.
Just to +1 ddubya.
There's no suggestion that Samsung can't make cad free dots. They and many other institutions have been able to for years. The question is over the mass production process. Samsung couldn't mass produce at all until Hansol, Nanoco, Nanosys and QD Vision were put in a bag, shaken up and a new process mysteriously pulled out that they have never revealed any information on publicly. However, they don't need IP covering that process. They could have chosen not to protect it. Would be a strange move but they just need to be not using anyone else's.
Just to be super pedantic. I think Nanoco can indeed protect CFQD. Not because it's patented but didn't they trademark "CFQD" as a brand name? No one can patent cadmium free quantum dots. Just how they make thm.
Hello Troublesome. I am surprised you ask but happy to oblige. Firms such as Quantum Material Corp, Avantama and Mesolight claim to manufacture heavy metal free QD and have them available for sale commercially. NANO is not taking action against them, which suggests they follow different methods of production and certainly do not use NANOs ‘unique’ seeding process. There are also many universities and research labs doing something similar but not selling commercially, so without danger of patent infringement.
CFQD themselves cannot be Patented by NANO (or anyone) as TB infers, just some of the many processes around production, including seeding and features that make QD long lasting and stable in use, for example preventing oxidisation and improving colour gamut.
I do not include you in this statement T but the Board has become clogged up with euphoria and a specific brand of uninformed BS, which when called out is immediately followed by derision ridicule and the occasional niggle. Work is demanding enough, so I would prefer not to have to deal with the uninformed and narrow minded in my leisure time.
Without Prejudice (TB - thank you TB for creasing up my legal colleagues)
Another we point , if Richard Griffiths is consistently pumping in tens of millions into nanoco shares , and as we've all just recently seen him do just recently, do you not think Richard with a fortune of £240+ million wouldn't back nanoco all the way here. If nanoco need more funds, it's major shareholders will gladly help take this all the way to the end game, Richard Griffiths has shown his confidence in nanoco's current plans , and so will most of nanoco's shareholders.
GLA
ddubya do you actually think that nanoco's patent lawyers wouldn't have searched all Samsungs old new and probably pending patents, before launching a multi million dollar lawsuit. That's the first thing any sensible patent lawyers would do.
It's nonsensical to think otherwise, though mistakes do happen.
If Samsung found another way to make CFQD without breaching our CFQD patents , then that's fine and dandy, but to knowledge no one has bypassed nanoco's IP patented scaffolding to achieve that goal, we got there first, and that's what this is all about, only one person walked on the moon first, the rest are followers, if Samsung had any evidence to say otherwise , do you not think they would have presented it to nanoco from last march , of course they would have, that have nothing , just hot Korean secrets & lies to muddy the waters of the legal systems .
Samsung will probably make a carefully worded statement to cover their dirty tricks . So we will see what they come out with, though they have from last March to get there story straight, and that hasn't happened yet. You have to ask the question " WHY
DYOR, GLA
Hi dbuya,
Do you have any references to to the other methods as I'm not really familiar with them.
I know Nanoco always refer to their patented molecular seeding process as unique.
There are many ways to make QD that are free of heavy metals, or CFQD as they are often referred to. It follows that anyone can make them, although they should not be using a process that has been Patented to do so. So it is not CFQD that the Patent applies to, rather the process surrounding their manufacture. I understand that NANO claims Samsung is making them in volume using its Patented process of seeding, which allows for volume batch production. If Samsung has found another way to make CFQD in volume then it probably has not infringed NANOs Patents, although it strangely has not registered its own Patent. However, NANO seems confident it has not.
All this is really a forensic deciphering of information, and quite difficult to understand to most people, just when you think you've got a grasp of it , it then takes another confusing turn.
I'm with PPE on this one.
who developed. CFQD
Who patented CFQD
On what date was CFQD patented.
I could be wrong here but I'm quite confident it was nanoco.
So really all these other people/ companies who are using CFQD are infringing on our patents.
Samsung has been the leader I Believe in all these breeches of our patents.
As PPE SAYS all Samsung have to do is show a court or nanoco the patents that cover the technology that they are using to make CFQD, and as PPE SAYS , that's impossible, because only one party can own that patent or patents that covers our CFQD
technology.
Samsung have had a very long discussion with nanoco from last March I believe, about our IP PATENT thief, and to date they can't and haven't shown nanoco anything to defend themselves, which normally means a very large element of guilt here.
To me it seems quite straight forward, no patent, no ownership to manufacture CFQD TV,s,,, it should be that simple in front of the law, though Samsungs lawyers I'm sure can muddy the waters with anything, but what they can't change is the ownership of our CFQD patents, normally Samsung can delay these things for years stalling, though nanoco will strive to get this in front of a JUDGE AND JURY ASP, BUT WE HOLD THE TRUMP CARD HERE, IF we threaten to sell to another party Samsung can kiss goodbye to them CFQD patents, and that's were we have them by the #alls. And that's maybe why Samsung are on a very cautionary approach to nanoco regarding any heavy media rebuttals of our allegations.
I'm convinced the Chinese will make a strong play for our IP patents, that's there previous form in past IP technology fights.
They also won't get another opportunity to purchase these patents, it's now or never For the Chinese, what we have is exactly what they go for, a new leading technology development, that can change all TV,s to be the best in class. It's a no brainer, they are there ok as one of our suitors, and they don't like to loose, especially to South Koreans.
Our share price should steadily increase as the technology journalist crunch the numbers regarding our lawsuit.
I've never been this happy to hold my share position in my life. If we had a offer or £1.50p tomorrow I wouldn't be one bit surprised, just happy that Samsung or China have given nanoco it's fair reward for numerous years of R&D spending.
DYOR, and never buy on my say so. GLA
PPE: "Oh what a tangled web we weave.... (part and parcel of the Samsung Syndrome)" This link you found, Paul, is nothing less than bizarre.
Perhaps, Samsung is attempting to fabricate a cover for stolen IP and thus save face vis-a-vis the Korean public. I doubt this will fly in a Texas court.
The following link documents QD Vision statements in 2015 just prior to its failures and takeover by Samsung (interesting that Samsung journalists refer to QDV's work in cadmium free QD's, despite the fact that this is contradicted by QDV argumants against CFQD's at the time; note also that Samsung had announced the availability of CFQD TVs at CES using Hansol QDs at CES in January of 2015):
https://optics.org/news/6/9/57
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) spin-out QD Vision, which has received heavy backing from venture capitalists, hit back immediately. In two statements, it questioned the motives and accuracy of Nanoco’s releases, describing them as part of an “ongoing public relations campaign” to exclude cadmium-based QDs from the European Union:
“In May of this year, the European Parliament asked the European Commission to review a recent decision to extend QD Vision’s exemption for using cadmium selenide based on its solution’s energy efficiency and a lack of competitive alternatives,” is its interpretation of the situation in Europe.
“According to the Commission, that review is under way according to the process prescribed by the Parliament, which also stated that, in the meantime, their recommendation should introduce ‘no market disruptions’. Claims by Nanoco that the exemption was stopped by the Commission and Parliament are incorrect and misleading.”
Rival technologies
Its CEO Mustafa Ozgen says that the cadmium selenide dots have “significant” advantages over rival technologies in terms of color gamut and energy efficiency that alternatives cannot yet match.
QD Vision claimed: “Nanoco continues its efforts to have products using its indium-based quantum dot technology introduced into the [European Union] display market, but there are none to date.”
I found the following on the web fairly easily. I'm not sure the li nks add much but they may be useful as background reading.
https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/nanoco-accuses-samsung-of-quantum-dot-patent-infringement/
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--20-cv-00038/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._et_al/
https://boingboing.net/2017/09/26/judge-rodney-gilstrap-2.html
This last site about the seems a bit strong - no idea how reliable it is! So all "without predujice" haha!