Member Info for amerloque

Can anyone tell me who financed Nanoco's lawsuit against Samsung infringement?

I agree, Becontrarian. Nanoco staff deserve huge praise for a job well done. They fought hard in a battle few thought they could win. They deserve to be rewarded. It's a great story for Nanoco, the British, and all the shareholders who hung on over difficult times. It's now time for Nanoco and the Texas court to teach Samsung scum an unforgettable lesson.

First, let me apologize to the PTAB for doubting them. They have shown great integrity. I give them my utmost respect and thanks.

Given Nanoco's total victory, it almost makes no sense for Samsung to appeal the Final Decision. How could they possibly overturn such a debacle? Remember, that BT has repeatedly said that Nanoco only needs one claim.

Thanks, Feeks. Your input reinforced my beliefs.

Thanks for your feedback, Morbox. Nanoco share price rose to 2 pounds shortly after the Dow agreement was announced. This was based on projected income from Dow building a plant in S. Korea to support Samsung and LG sales. Nanoco is on much safer ground today with likely triple damages from Samsung covering TV sales over 7 years and illegal transfer of Nanoco IP to multiple internal and external parties.

Excluding the lawsuit, Nanoco expects to be profitable in 2023 from Heatwave technology alone. Add to this strong likelihood of new contracts for both heatwave and CFQDs for medical, display, AR/VR, industrial, land and air vehicles, lighting, and more, I see no reason why it should not reach at least 2 pounds very soon and then far surpass that. I suggest that selling Nanoco shares anytime soon would be a mistake.

I am happy for Nanoco employees, for myself and for other holders on this and the other board. Nanoco employees are to be congratulated for their fine work. We all deserve good results and the huge profits that will result from this review and the eventual trial. I have particularly enjoyed the positive energy and contributions from most posters on this board. Many on the advfn board have also contributed heavily. Congratulations to all!

Thus, emulsion is much more specific than mixture, which has very general meaning.

Feeks: Thanks for your input. if I understand the transcript correctly, Nanoco's patent requires the use of an 'emulsion'. Samsung claims that 'mixture', a term used in prior art, is a synonym of emulsion. The Oxford dictionary emulsion definition states that emulsions are not mischible nor soluable (i.e., similar to paint, they can be mixed but will never become homogenous).

As nouns the difference between mixture and emulsion is that mixture is the act of mixing while emulsion is a stable suspension of small droplets of one liquid in another with which it is immiscible. Mayonnaise is an emulsion where egg is used to keep oil and water mixed.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=emulsion
These definitions from Oxford Languages Dictionary are quite clear that an emulsion is not a mixture:
e·mul·sion
noun
1.
a fine dispersion of minute droplets of one liquid in another in which it is not soluble or miscible.

mis·ci·ble
adjective
adjective: miscible

(of liquids) forming a homogeneous mixture when added together.

sol·u·ble
adjective: soluble

1.
(of a substance) able to be dissolved, especially in water.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/STMICROELECTRONICS-N-V-4710/news/STMicroelectronics-reveals-advanced-global-shutter-image-sensor-for-affordable-reliable-driver-moni-40284380/

This NIR product corresponds to the Nanoco timeline:

"The new global-shutter sensor, VB56G4A, leverages ST’s in-house investment in manufacturing advanced 3D-stacked back-side illuminated (BSI-3D) image sensors. These are more sensitive, smaller, and more reliable than conventional front-side illuminated (FSI) sensors typically used in first-generation DMSs.

"ST is supplying samples of its new sensor to lead customers now and mass production is scheduled for the beginning of 2023 for adoption in model year 2024 vehicles. new sensor achieves high Quantum Efficiency (QE), reaching 24% at 940nm near-infrared wavelength, with linear dynamic range up to 60dB. This enables a simple low-power, non-visible LED emitter to provide adequate illumination for the sensor. Operating outside the visible spectrum also ensures consistent response in day or night driving and in bright or overcast conditions."

"The sensor’s high QE, combined with a pixel size of just 2.6µm..."

BTB: We recognize that Samsung will probably string this out. Yet, Nanoco share price will rise significantly following each of the PTAB decision, the Heatwave commercialization in the second half of this year, and the Jury Trial in Texas. You will be soon be left with nothing but ridicule and egg on your face. You should invest your Samsung salary in Nanoco shares before it is too late.

Nanoco has certainly been guilty of bad management. While Nanoco science is amazing, Nanoco and Edelman not only lacked business skills--he failed to understand such needs. CEO Edelman, in contrast to Tenner, was unrealistic about prospects almost to the point of being dishonest. We have to wonder why it took so long to recognize that Samsung had no interest in using Nanoco's products. As late as 2017, we were holding out hope that Samsung would contract with Nanoco. Edelman seemed to exaggerate prospects in order to keep the share price up. As share price declined, he always managed to sell his shares at relatively high prices. He let his coworkers and shareholders down. Thankfully, the arrival of Mintz and Nanoco's lawsuit sponsor spelled his departure. Tenner,the current CEO seems to have his feet on the ground.

www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/world/asia/samsung-jy-lee.html
Samsung's record of bribery and jail sentencing is staggering. Not mentioned in the above article was an instance of bribery that I have documented previously on this board. It involved the Samsung's CEO being sent to jail was for bribing a member of the court with a job offer for the latter's family member. As far as I could determine, Samsung offered this family member an important position in the electronics division (not Hansol) that eventually produced Samsung's cad free quantum dots.

This is maddeningl
1 Does anyone on this board believe that Samsung did not steal Nanoco IP and would need to take steps to avoid a lawsuit?
2 Does anyone on this board trust Samsung not to be evil.

Hopefully, Nanoco will not have to compete with a giant cartel against its own IP at STM. It seems that Heatwave uses different technology than cfqd's.

Well said, intrusive! BTB fails to appreciate the trials and tribulations faced by small companies. Unsurprisingly, potential customers tend to avoid risk when there is an alternative. Admittedly, there should never have been an alternative. If that alternative comes with rewards, so much the better. Let's not forget that executives are rightfully motivated by job security.

We all know that RoHS failed Nanoco, yet Samsung was able to succeed with the same technology. How would Sherlock describe it?

1 Motive
2 Opportunity
3 Modus operandi
4 Extraordinary coincidences
5 Lending credence and acclaim to Nanosys, and even funding their cadmium QDs despite competing with CFQDs
6 Ultimately admitting to using Nanoco IP
7 Utter failure to oppose RoHS decisions, while the RoHS justified their decisions via claims of no viable alternative
8 Billions of dollars at stake

Sure, move on! "Nothing to see here", said the visitors from the "Country of the Blind".

Apple is a big purchaser of Samsung semiconductors, Nanogeddon. I don't believe Nanoco patents were involved. Moreover, it seems that Apple may end up using Nanoco/STM sensing technology.

Great example, Intrusive. This was just one of many dangers to capitalism presented by such a huge cartel. Huge coincidences! The venture with Osram fell apart about the time that Samsung settled an Osram lawsuit. The Apple venture was possibly influenced by favorable semiconductor pricing agreements. Around the time of the Dow failure, Samsung acquired an unsuccessful Dow subsidiary. If Samsung is so big that it can influence the P&L of a company the size of Apple, imagine its effect on smaller companies. In a world of Samsungs, Googles, Microsofts, Amazons and Chinese government owned companies, free markets are disappearing. Many of these companies can claim that they were making 'good' business decisions, but they must have known that such decisions were injurious to Nanoco, an innovative green company that deserved much better. I just hope that the PTAB and the Texas court recognize this and don't give in to self-serving interests.

BTB: I have addressed in the past how Samsung has repeatedly blocked Nanoco. You must certainly agree that if Samsung stole Nanoco IP, it would benefit from limiting Nanoco's ability to afford expensive lawsuits in defense of its IP. As you don't seem willing to listen, I won't bother to explain in detail again. Suffice to say that Samsung promoted Nanosys and its cadmium dots while very likely rewarding Nanoco potential partners in various ways for not finalizing Nanoco various commercial ventures.

Other than attempting to drive the share price down or possibly serving as a Samsung shill, I don't understand your goal here.

Correction: I suspect that no other company could contemplate SUCH SOPHISTICATED gesture systems at this time. Note that the last STM webinar presenter made reference to new TOF sensors soon to be released. Also, I believe I her comment that STM was placing applying more resources in Imaging than in any other product area. This will be huge for Nanoco if STM implements its nano materials.