Member Info for amerloque

https://quantumscis.com/2021/03/17/qs-partners-with-university-of-glasgow/

It seems that QS specializes in organic and hybrid semiconductor materials and devices.

Peter F Snell, recognized as one of the top IP litigators in the world, could possibly help to settle the licensing agreements appropriate for a settlement. Any settlement would also need to address licenses granted by Samsung to third parties. Such settlement would need to incorporate licenses currently granted by Samsung to third parties. If there were a way to monitor Samsung production, an easy solution would be to allow Samsung to become a short to medium term distributor for all existing licensees of stolen Nanoco technology. Thus Nanoco would have manufacturing capabilities already in place with no need for additional investment. End users would not be hurt, and Nanoco could immediately receive significant and growing revenue. The cash settlement would be in addition to this and would need to be very substantial (1-2 billion British Pounds).

As Golden Bridge is based in Australia, Tariq may have knowledge of the mysterious "Asian Chemical" company considering purchase of Heat Wave products.

This certainly resulted in some investors overpaying for shares. It's sad that the person responsible for this incredible mistake can only be decapitated if we can find their head and reattach it. At least, the Tariq Hamoodi purchase is good news. He seems to be well placed to appreciate Nanoco's prospects in the infringement trial.

My most recent post was a reference to research on Trial Date July 25, 2022: file notice of request for daily transcript or real time reporting.

Thanks, Sunshine. I imagine they will use realtime transcription/reporting:
indreporters.com/benefits-of-realtime-court-reporting-services/
"What are the benefits of realtime reporting? ...Instant Access to the Transcript"
It seems likely that the party with the best case and better off-site experts could dominate over the pure garbage spouted by Samsung.

"During the discovery, trial, hearing or arbitration, counsel can view the transcript instantly on a laptop or tablet and follow along during the deposition/trial. This allows for efficient questioning of the witness and the ability to review any previous questions/answers/testimony given if needed.
While viewing the live transcript immediately as it is being taken down, counsel, board members, or the presiding judge can better know if they need to ask follow-up questions or further questions on earlier testimony."

"Sometimes having a large team on-site is impractical. With internet access from the main proceeding room, IR can provide remote access to co-counsel, paralegals, support staff or expert witnesses to participate from their own office. The remote text stream can be text-only or we can also add streaming video and audio."

Well said, LordWM! I agree completely.

BC: I agree that even if they lose at court there is nothing compelling Samsung to admit liability or do anything further than pay whatever the court orders. Such an order will apply only to the US.

Any out of court settlement, however, is something that Nanoco can and will control in a way that will not tie their hands. Very substantial amounts of money might influence Nanoco actions. Security trading laws would force Nanoco to report all related financial and other arrangements.

BC: Many bloggers here seem to agree that a settlement would need to be worldwide. I am confident that Nanoco lawyers are smart enough to demand knowledge of where Samsung transferred Nanoco technology. Why is this important? Samsung customers, even within the Chaebol, would certainly have included indemnity clauses within any transaction, thus preventing Nanoco from pursuing them. Such clauses would have made Samsung liable, but would a prior global settlement then prevent Nanoco from further pursuing Samsung?

BC: I make the assumption that Nanoco's lawyers are not stupid. Nanoco IP is platform technology. Although this does not have to be made public, Nanoco needs to know where its technology is being or has been used. I doubt that Samsung has the backbone to admit to all of their wrong-doing. I doubt that Samsung even knows all of the places where the IP went. If it went to China, the barn door is wide open.

Any out of court settlement would force Samsung to admit to all of its wrong-doing involving many of Samsung's 100 internal subsidiaries and external licensing and sales in which Samsung would have indemnified the purchaser. Infringement is egregious enough to require a huge out of court settlement, the risk of which does not appear on its balance sheet. This is not just infringement. Samsung obviously attempted to limit Nanoco and possibly even to destroy it. To believe in an out of court settlement may be underestimating Samsung' arrogance. BT indicated a willingness to accept a settlement but was also obliged to appear open to compromise. To seem otherwise would have been detrimental to Nanoco's case.

Weinstein frequently provides expert testimony against Samsung. They always request that he be excluded from testifying. Courts always deny the request.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-types-of-damages-or-compensation-will-court-award-for-patent-infringement.html

“…courts have wide discretion to award certain categories based upon the facts of a case. The two most common damage categories are "reasonable royalties" and "lost profits."
"Reasonable royalties" … means the fair market value of a license or "royalty…. “
"Lost profits" refer to the monies that you or your company could have made but for the defendant's wrongful infringement of your patent. The challenge here is that there must be a nexus of causation between the infringement and your bottom line.“
[The nexus is that Nanoco’s product was a platform technology marketing to lighting, display, solar, agricultural and medical and other companies. Had Samsung paid royalties, Nanoco could have exploited these other avenues; Dow would also have been able to market Nanoco’s QDs throughout the world. To estimate the loss, request projections of Samsung anticipated future QD-related revenue from other arenas.]
“…you and your attorney [must] offer expert witnesses or reports to establish various fair market values on which the judge can rely.”

I suspect that Samsung files many motions in hopes that they will provide grounds for appeal in case they lose. Most of the motions are ridiculous.

Hopefully, Nanoco lawyers will call top Samsung scientists to the stand. I want to see them explain their admission of failure and subsequent begging help from Nanoco. We would also like an explanation as to how Hansel, Samsung's toilet paper subsidiary, managed to invent Cadmium Free Quantum Dots while Samsung scientists floundered.

How can anyone live in England on £18,000 - £20,000 a year?

More great research, Feeks! Placing the PTAB and the courts under a microscope is very favorable for Nanoco. This hearing made it clear that the US patent system is broken:
1) The PTAB system has aided large corporations rather than inventors, as originally intended.
2) Inability to file injunctions has created huge opportunity costs for inventors and needs to be changed.
3) Simply having infringers pay back-royalties does not come close to making up opportunity loss. [ I hope that Nanoco will be allowed to show this video in the Texas court trial.]
4) The Congressional commission frequently expressed that China and huge corporations in general now have all the advantages.
5) We should not allow political appointees to decide patent validity'
6) The PTAB should stop using 'preponderance of evidence' in determining validity and replace it with "clear and convincing evidence'.
7) Anyone can request an IPR, regardless of standing. The number of IPR's need to be restricted. Apparently, the PTAB has allowed as many a 26 IPR's to be instituted against a single patent.

Nanogeddon: For me, share price represents confirmation of share value. I began investing in Nanoco over 10 years ago for long term gain. I want the price to go up but have no intention to sell at this time. It is an asset. Why would anyone not want asset appreciation?

(1) I believe in Nanoco stock, but I recognize that, while it offers great opportunity, it is riskier than many other stocks. If Nanoco represented a large portion of RG's investments, he is wise to diversify and take profits while he can, especially if he has an opportunity to invest up front in promising startups. IQE does look promising, though it is not a startup. There seem to be a number of small, potentially disruptive companies. The recent pull back in stocks has also raised many opportunities.
(2) Quantum dot and Heat Wave competition is also rapidly increasing. Does anyone know if Nanoco expects to use its infrared technology for Photonics in Circuitry, which improves chip performance by replacing many electrical connections with infrared optical connections? STMicro seems to have interest in applying this technology to in a new semiconductor joint venture with Global Foundries.

NGR: Your comment slants toward sniping. I agree, however, that Nigwitty does not hate Nanoco. At one time, he even supported Edelman's statement that Nanoco did not need sales and business skills .

Nigwit seems to have a personality disorder that leads him to hate many posters on this board because they contribute more than he. He desperately seeks to be the most important person on this board, resulting in comments that are often pretentious, self-promoting and wrong. More than anything, he just wants to be right. Outside of two or three people who may be Nigwit using different logins, many posters to this board seem unappreciative of his arrogance and constant sniping. I notice that he infects every board in which he participates (ADVFN, as an example). His ultimate argument is that intelligent investing is beyond our skill set. I certainly do not find that to be true. This site is filled with many intelligent posters who constantly seek to expand their knowledge as well as that of others. They don't belong to a cult. Personally, I abandoned this site at one time due to unfair sniping and only returned when Nigwit departed. Nigwit's departure immediately improved the tone of this site. FYI, I am not asking Nigwitty to leave. I just wish that his tone would be more collaborative and not so critical.

Thanks, Feeks. You continue to do great research.