Member Info for amerloque

Sure.

Gilstrap seems honorable. The jury is impressionable and will be influenceable by lawyers. Media is the wild card. Mintz and founder need to publicize discreetly Samsung's historically despicable behavior as well as the Nanoco-Samsung history and the David-Goliath aspect.

The semiconductor bill approved in US congress and now moving to the Senate could be a boost for Nanoco. I have been somewhat concerned that Samsung might use the $17B Texas plant to influence the Texas court. Allocating bIllions to Samsung would alleviate their pain and make it difficult for them to leave. Nanoco may soon need to expand manufacturing. Why not build in Texas and get a share of the money? Samsung probably intended to use part of the Texas facility to manufacture quantum dots. Now that they will likely not be allowed to manufacture QDs, money intended for producing Samsung QDs could be used to fund a Nanoco plant in Texas.

I have never seen you as rude, Troublesome. Your comments are always welcome here.

@troublesome: I suspect that Nigwit infects every board he is on. He is rude. He brings us down. He bullies people; they defend themselves. Fed up, I once turned this board off and moved to the ADVFN board. When he moved to ADVFN, I returned here. He is now on both boards, so no benefit in moving. I wish he were not so rude.

@SteakandAle: Like you, I have been around a long time and would have agreed with you had I not googled "order visibility". The world has changes while we often don't. For example, Level 4 manufacturing, in which STMicro has made huge advances with new micro sensors and micro communication devices of many types, has enabled world changing supply chain and order and inventory tracking advances. Nanoco sensors could eventually play a big role in this future. It is not at all surprising that BT would use terminology that would reflect STMicro's role in this future. If you google "order visibility', you will see many references to this new definition.

@SteakandAle: Like you, I have been around a long time and would have agreed with you had I not googled "order visibility". The world has changes while we often don't. For example, Level 4 manufacturing, in which STMicro has made huge advances with new micro sensors and micro communication devices of many types, has enabled shocking supply chain and order tracking advances. Nanoco sensors could eventually play a big role in this future. It is not at all surprising that BT would use terminology that would reflect STMicro's role in this future. If you google "order visability', you will see many references to this new definition.

Please ignore my comment, Feeks. I thought you were addressing me.

I did not mean to be critical, Feeks. I had previously not realized that 'Order Visibility' had a very specific meaning and can only occur after the contract is in place. I was previously interpreting the phrase to mean visability of future orders. Although, I want to see a production contract ASAP, I am certainly not desperate.

If BT is correct, we could expect a contract very soon.

The confusion seems to lie in our understanding of 'order visibility'. Order visibility refers to the ability of management to track orders through production and delivery. "The secret to success is order visibility – the ability to track an order through the fulfillment and shipping process."
spscommerce.com/blog/empower-customer-facing-staff-real-time-order-visibility/

Order visability can only happen after STM gives Nanoco a contract. In this light, BT's comments are much more positive than we had thought.

Thanks, Feeks/Troublesome/BC. Learning of the Doctrine of Equivalents is a big relief. Thanks, everyone, for huge contributions. This board is outstanding.

It is very complicated, but Samsung's counter-response to Nanoco's Docket 173 response exposes their intention during the PTAB IPR to trap Nanoco into terminology needed to protect their patent while enabling Samsung to claim that their process used different materials and thus did not infringe. Hopefully, Nanoco lawyers will defeat this effort, and the court will deny Samsung's request. This should serve as a warning for anyone considering doing business with Samsung. While Nanoco and Dow were building a plant to supply Samsung, Samsung was plotting ways to steal the IP.

Thanks, Sammy. I did say that I am not a lawyer. It surprises me that lawyers cannot be reprimanded for misleading the courts.

Following is my understanding. I welcome opposing insights.

Nanoco claims to have the smoking gun. Multiple parties have performed due diligence. Nanoco bought and analyzed Samsung TV's. Separately, Mintz reviewed Nanoco's findings. They also hired a leading specialist company to investigate and perform analyses. All of these found that Samsung had created the QDs using Nanoco's patented processes. Samsung apparently even admitted to using the Nanoco's IP, declaring the patent to be invalid on terminology grounds. Multiple judges from the US PTAB have now overwhelmingly declared Nanoco IP to be valid. Given repeated due diligence and Nanoco admission, it is unimaginable that Nanoco lawyers would not be able to prove infringement. Samsung still seems to base its strategy on terminology errors. How would the court react if Samsung were to reverse it strategy at this time? I am not a lawyer, but I would expect that some Samsung lawyers might be disbarred for wasting the court's time.

You are right, Nano. I still don't understand the SPAC motivation. SPAC can also provide strong leadership, but Nanoco already has strong leadership. Again, what are they hiding?

I have never understood why Nanosys, which claims to be so successful, has never gone public via a traditional IPO. Recently, they have attempted to go public via a SPAC instead of an IPO. Even this seems to have failed. A Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) is a shell corporation that does not have commercial operations. It is rather formed to generate sufficient capital through a shell company initial public offering (IPO) to acquire a company such as Nanosys that might want to raise capital but are not fit to list for an IPO because of their present size or valuation (Nanosys should qualify on both accounts). By merging with a SPAC, they gain liquidity while maintaining their stake. Besides being dangerous for investors, this is typically a very expensive way of going public, costing at least 20% of its value.
It seems that the SPAC solution would enable them to retain some secrecy. “What is Nanosys hiding that they would have to expose if they were to attempt a traditional IPO. A heretofore secret agreement with Samsung? How should conspiratorial agreements between Samsung and Nanosys influence Gilstrap’s ultimate award? I suspect that Samsung is more motivated to cover this up than we might expect.

@Troublesome: Sorry to cause confusion. I meant to say that there are very few more promising bets than Nanoco. I am not leaving this table. This is 'Texas Holdem' where we can see our opponents' cards.

Repeating the obvious, the chart simply says that it is trending higher, and this is the prediction if it continues in the same direction. For a share such as Nanoco, it means little. While it intrinsically incorporates expectations, it cannot consider actual trial or new sales results. If you are willing to gamble, this is as good as it gets.

Other than employees who studied at U of Glasgow, I see no association with Nanoco. If Quanutum Science sold Nanoco Infrared dots, they would probably refer to them as Heatwave. Nanoco has used organic caps around some of their quantum dots, perhaps qualifying them as hybrid. I wonder if QS used the Nanoco process with different materials. If so, would this enable partial licensing fees by Nanoco?