Member Info for amerloque

Nigwitty: You may be a lawyer with heavy litigation background, but
you seem to have ignored Samsung's history, especially as it relates to Nanoco. I made my first Nanoco investment in Nanoco in 2011 and have followed their dealings closely while accumulating ~200K shares. I am an advocate of free markets and have no respect for cartels that steal IP from small companies that are trying to make the world better. Nor do I want to hear that this is a valid business model. Before making further comments on this issue, please google "samsung criminal charges". I read recently that Samsung has lost twice as many US lawsuits in the past year as any other company in the world. I wonder if your litigation experience might have been for Samsung.

Once again, I do know the difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial. Nor have I have ever expected criminal charges to emerge directly from this trial. My question concerns whether Mintz might address new facts that could lead to a separate criminal trial.

As an example, suppose that during the course of addressing willful infringement someone was willing to testify that Samsung blackmailed or bribed people. I hardly see why the court would prevent such testimony. While this criminal behavior could not be punished in this trial, courts could pursue this at a later time. Please don't suggest that Samsung has never performed a criminal act.

Once infringement is determined, the trial will then address the award amount. I won't believe that Mintz would fail to expose Samsung's dirty tricks at this time. Are there limitations on what Mintz can expose if provable and documented? If so, such limitations should not limit Nanoco's ability to document willful infringement.

In a world in which Nanoco is the sole source for cadmium free quantum dots, it would be wrong to assume that Nanoco would sell their QDs for less than $30-$40 per TV. At the time of the Dow contract, quantum dot values were estimated to be $1 million per kilo.

I agree, NIDGM.

Nigwitty, Barbon: I am confident that posters to this site understand that criminality will not be addressed in this trial. Is it not possible that Mintz, in their argument for higher awards, could expose foul play that could lead to eventual criminal processing?

but the press anticipated revenue per TV to be $40-$50 per unit.

RJT1705: "The only hard facts are that had Samsung been honest they would have got a license fee of around $10-12 per unit and they have sold 28m units."

You assume that Mintz lawyers have focused only on proving infringement and have failed to investigate the repeated collapse of solid business agreements or the likely transfer or licensing of IP to internal divisions and possibly to other companies.

We can expect Mintz lawyers to raise many more 'facts' at the trial, some of which could even lead to criminal indictments. I even question the $10-$12 per unit price since illegal competition from Samsung will have lowered the price significantly. We did not have access to the Dow agreement, but the press anticipated revenue per TV was estimated to be $40-$50.

Exciting, Ecclescake! Strong likelihood of joint Apple, STMicro and Nanoco technology. Looks like I will need new glasses.

I find reporter/presenter failure to specify calendar vs financial quarters lazy and confusing. When not specified, I tend to assume financial when reporting financial issues. Based on the current ramping up of the Runcorn facility and current Apple and STMicro related reporting, we had better see contract news within 7 months.

H2 2022 still has 2 months remaining. Given the PTAB results, it would surprise me not to see new contracts during this period.

Samsung will use every tactic possible, especially the proposed $17B plant in Texas, to overturn the PTAB final decision and any eventual Texas court decision. The Samsung CEO just met with failing President Biden at the plant being used as the model for the Texas facility. This is no coincidence.

As far as I can determine, Samsung's current assets on 3/31/22 was $183,572,000,000. I would be very pleased if Nanoco's award amount required installment payments.

Warning to Nanoco management:
If Nanoco agrees to an NDA that limits key disclosures, insider trading laws would bar knowledgeable employees from trading Nanoco shares.

Nanoco should not sign an NDA:
1 There has already been too much secrecy; potential shareholders need to be able to trust the agreement.
2 An NDA could backfire on Nanoco if parts of the agreement get accidentally released, perhaps giving Samsung the right to nullify the agreement.
3 What right does Samsung have to demand an NDA?
4 Nanoco deserve a victory parade and the share price explosion that accompanies it.
5 Analysts need complete information in order to appraise the share value.
6 Nanoco should expose Samsung's despicable behavior.
7 Scriptwriters will need all the details when they make the movie.

Feeks: Although electroluminescence is of huge importance, QDVision went broke while failing to solve the technology. The following article describes their path to failure and eventual infringement on Nanosys technology. Their only recourse was to accept a buyout from Samsung. It is not clear that Samsung gained much from the patents, except to be able to claim that they owned quantum dot patents.

https://xconomy.com/boston/2016/04/19/nanosys-qd-vision-patent-fight-could-shake-up-nanotech-sector/

"According to the lawsuit filed by Nanosys, 12-year-old QD Vision initially focused on developing quantum dots that use “electroluminescence” properties, whereby electricity sent through the nanocrystals produces light. That’s different from the “photoluminescence” technique used by Nanosys, in which light is used to excite the semiconductor materials. But Nanosys alleges that when QD Vision hit a wall with its initial approach around 2008, the company switched to developing quantum dots that use the same method as Nanosys—and violate its patents.

“When QD Vision’s own technology failed, the company chose infringing on Nanosys’s patents over taking the time to innovate,” Hartlove said in a press release."

Nanoco should make any settlement contingent on Samsung guaranteeing future purchase and revealing all uses and transfers of Nanoco technology and IP under a large penalty. This should include a commitment to abandon QD manufacturing in the future.

Biden will visit the Samsung plant which is to be the model for the $17 billion plant in Texas. The Samsung CEO has been excused from attending an accounting fraud trial so that he can meet with the S. Korea President and Biden. Spy vs Spy?

www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mad+cartoon+versus&docid=607987904236830736&mid=EB7F8F676939D55286BBEB7F8F676939D55286BB&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

It is sad that BTB's bitter and insupportable rants might have influenced prospective purchasers not to buy shares, thus losing the opportunity to substantially enrich themselves. He owes apologies to a lot of people.

Fortunately, there is still a great runway to make money.

Feeks: You are right. Samsung using QD labelling to drive their QD displays at an enhanced premium justifies a much higher award to Nanoco. Let's not forget that Samsung must have infringed many other of Nanoco's 500+ patents--too many to bring to one trial! For the present, do awards accumulate for each of the 5 infringements thus far?

USA WARNING!!! Never trade at Market on the USA Over the Counter market. Whereas major exchanges throughout the world protect 'at Market' traders, the OTC market provides no protection. Thus, an 'at Market' buy of Nanoco (NNOCF) can cost many times the fair price. Similarly, 'at Market' sells can execute at a small fraction of the fair value. To avoid being cheated, always specify 'Limit' buy or sell and a specific price when trading on the OTC market.